Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Glasgow Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Ross Water) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSFERRED WORKERS, SOUTHWARK.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she can state the number of boys who have been transferred for employment to the borough of Southwark in the county of London area for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date;and whether grants from the Lord Mayor's Fund in aid of maintenance have been allowed in these cases, and the amount?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): During the 12 months ended 31st October, 1929, six boys were transferred from the depressed mining areas to employment in Southwark. Grants from the Lord Mayor's Fund varying from 5s. to 7s. 6d. per week were made in the case of five of these boys. The grants are not payable unless the juvenile in each case is receiving from the employer something in wages each week over and above the proper local rate of wage.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any negotiations are going on at the present time for the transference of juvenile labour to this district?

Miss BONDFIELD: I could not say without notice.

LIVERPOOL EXCHANGES (PART-TIME CLERKS).

Mr. KINLEY: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that certain Employment Exchanges in the Liverpool area employ part-time clerks at weekends for the making up of accounts; that these clerks are already holding good positions in private firms; and whether she will cause this practice to cease and give full-time employment to one or more at present unemployed clerks?

Miss BONDFIELD: This work has to be done on Friday evenings, after the delivery of the weekly pay sheets by the various employers and in readiness for payment on Saturday morning. It is not practicable therefore to deal with it by means of full-time engagement of clerks.

Mr. KINLEY: Will the right hon. Lady consider this matter again in view of the serious objections which exist locally with regard to this practice?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware that this particular arrangement with the dock employers is purely for the convenience of the dockers. The work requires speed and accuracy and must be done by experienced people.

Mr. SEXTON: Is it not a fact that the Exchange referred to was specially created to deal with casual labour only, and does not deal with unemployment in other directions?

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: May I ask whether this practice would be permitted under the Washington Convention?

STATISTICS.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will give the average annual increase or decrease, as between the first week in June and the first week in December, for the years 1925 to 1928, inclusive, of the unemployment register figures?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply contains a table, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. POWNALL: Cannot the right hon. Lady give a summary showing the average for the four years?

Miss BONDFIELD: I could give the figures—

HON. MEMBERS: Circulate!

Following is the table:


Persons on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain.


Year.
Second Monday in June, (a)
First Monday in December.
Increase (+) or Decrease (-).


1925
…
…
…
…
1,291,191 (b)
1,161,257
-129,934


1926
…
…
…
…
1,629,939 (c)
1,506,320
-123,619


1927
…
…
…
…
1,028,732
1,149,648
+120,916


1928
…
…
…
…
1,149,943
1,350,806
+200,863


NOTES


(a) Figures are given for the second Monday in June because in the years 1926 and 1927 the first Monday in June was Whit-Monday and the numbers on the Registers were temporarily increased by holiday claimants.


(b) The course of unemployment in the second half of 1925 was affected by the abnormal situation in the coal mining industry in June of that year, when 314,639 insured persons were recorded as unemployed. Between 22nd June, 1925, and 23rd November, 1926, the numbers unemployed in that industry decreased by 126,174. There was also substantial improvement in other industries which are not subject to seasonal fluctuations in employment, more particularly in the cotton and woollen textile industries.


(c) The figures for 1926 are affected by the general dispute in the coal mining industry which began on 1st May. The increase in. unemployment in other industries due to that dispute was greatest in June, and from that date onwards there was continuous improvement which more than counterbalanced the normal decline in the second half of the year, due to seasonal causes.

Mr. LEES: 20 and 21.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of unemployed signed on at the following Employment Exchanges, Alfreton and Belper, during October, 1928, and October, 1929;
(2) the number of unemployed signing on at the Employment Exchange at Ripley; and how many reside at Heage and Nether Heage?

Mr. BATEY: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed on the unemployment registers in each Employment Exchange area in the county of Durham?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will circulate statements in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as the information desired can be tabulated.

Mr. LEES: Can the right hon. Lady give the particulars asked for in question number 21?

EXCHANGE FACILITIES, BEVERLEY AND MACCLESFIELD.

Mr. DAVID WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware of the inconvenience caused to the unemployed of Beverley by the inadequate accommodation at the Employment Exchange, which has only one small room, with the entrance and exit through one
door, with the result that large queues are formed outside in the main street, which is very narrow, and there is considerable congestion of traffic; and will she cause inquiry to be made with a view to providing alternative premises or carrying out alterations to the existing buildings, so that the work may be carried out more expeditiously and provide shelter for those compelled to have recourse to the Employment Exchange?

Miss BONDFIELD: Inquiry has been made and certain improvements effected in the timing arrangements for applicants. If these do not prove satisfactory, other steps will be taken.

Mr. REMER: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is now in a position to make any statement with reference to the Macclesfield Employment Exchange?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir, I have nothing to add to my previous reply.

Mr. REMER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is making any arrangements with the local
Employment Exchanges that for the purpose of interviews a special room or rooms should be provided where claimants can be interviewed by officers away from the observation and hearing of others, in accordance with a recommendation of the Morris Report?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is the policy of the Ministry to provide separate interview rooms for men, women and juveniles, respectively, in all Employment Exchange premises. Such accommodation has been provided in all the new buildings, and also in the existing buildings, as far as the accommodation will permit.

PLYMOUTH.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has received any representations from the Plymouth and District Trades Council supporting the recommendation that Plymouth should be regarded as a distressed area under the unemployment grants scheme; and whether she will favourably consider this request?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have received the representations referred to, but in view of the need of continuing to concentrate transfer efforts on the severely depressed mining areas, I am not prepared to extend the schedule to cover areas such as Plymouth.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. TINKER: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour if her attention has been called to the case of Mr. Albert Farrington, Tyldesley Road, Hindsford, Atherton, whose claim for unemployment benefit was before the court of referees on 28th August and allowed by them; if she is aware that since then he has made repeated applications for payment, but was told the matter was being considered by the chief insurance officer; that on Friday, 29th November, he was told his claim had been disallowed by the chief insurance officer and would have to go before the umpire, no reason being given for the long delay; and will she see that such long periods are avoided?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret the delay which has taken place. The case is now before the umpire.

Mr. TINKER: May I ask when the right hon. Lady received the original communication which was forwarded to her Department?

Miss BONDFIELD: As a matter of fact, I am giving special attention to this particular case in which there have been delays which I am not satisfied should have occurred.

Mr. REMER: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of people at present being refused unemployment benefit on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking work?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that precise statistics are not available regarding the total number of persons at present unemployed whose claims for benefit have been disallowed on the ground "not genuinely seeking work."

TRAINING FACILITIES.

Sir A. POWNALL: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men training facilities are available at Brandon; and how many are now under training there?

Miss BONDFIELD: At the Brandon Training Centre 250 places are available for the training of men in farm work for employment overseas. Three annexes, each with a capacity of 200, are also available as required. The number of men receiving training for employment overseas at the Centre and annexes is now 287. In addition, 60 places are available for the training of men as handymen for employment in this country. The number of men at the Centre receiving handymen training is now 42.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady say why only 287 men are receiving training when apparently 850 are provided for?

Miss BONDFIELD: The main reason is the difficulty of recruiting in connection with the distressed areas at the present time. The actual number on any given date cannot always be regarded as a measure of what is happening throughout the whole month, because a certain set of men may have finished training, and on the day when they leave it is quite possible that the others cannot be immediately got into their places. A week later there may be a considerable difference in the figures.

Sir A. POWNALL: Has there been this number of vacancies in the course of the last two months, or is it purely fortuitous?

Miss BONDFIELD: There has been a much larger number of vacancies than I care to see.

Sir A. POWNALL: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the total of places available under her Department for training of men; and how many are now receiving training?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is somewhat long, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

At Government training centres which are already established or are in process of being opened, provision is made for 3,300 training places of which 3,025 are at present available. On 6th December, 2,736 men were receiving training at these centres for employment in this country. At transfer instruction centres 1,200 training places are available. On 3rd December, 1,133 men were receiving instruction at these centres for employment in this country. At overseas training centres 620 training places are available, while, in addition, accommodation is available, as required, in three annexes at Brandon and in centres on the estates of the Forestry Commission. At present 522 men are receiving training at these centres for employment overseas.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Mr. DUKES: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that on 5th December, 1929, a number of men were sent by the Warrington Employment Exchange to the Partington Steel Works, Irlam, for work on the slag heap; that these men had to pay their own train fares; that when they arrived at 8 a.m. they were compelled to wait until 9.20 a.m. before being interviewed, when they were told there were no vacancies; and that the work to which these Warrington men were sent was in dispute, no statement being made to the men by the Employment Exchange regarding the matter, the dispute being settled On the morning the men arrived; and if she will issue instructions to Employment Exchange officials not to send men into areas where there are already unemployed workmen suitable and available for such employ-anent as exists, and also in all cases to give information as to any dispute which may exist?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am making inquiries, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. BATEY: 86.
asked the Minister of Health the number of unemployed men in receipt of Poor Law relief, and the amount of relief paid to them, in each board of guardians area in the county of Durham?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Greenwood): As the reply contains a number of figures in tabular form I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Statement showing, for each Union in the Union County of Durham, the average number of unemployed men in receipt of out-door relief and the amount of out-relief paid to them and their dependants during the four weeks ended 26th October, 1929.

Name of Union.
Average number of unemployed men in receipt of out-door relief during the four weeks ended 26th October, 1929.
Total cost of outdoor relief in money and kind to the men shown in column 2 and their dependants during the four weeks ended 26th October,
1929.


1.
2.
3.




£


Darlington
178
593


Gateshead
2,857
11,890


Hartlepool
444
1,402


South Shields
1,401
4,649


Stockton
102
379


Sunderland
2,796
11,215


Auckland
520
1,845


Chester-le-Street
187
618


Durham
569
1,774


Easington
31
117


Houghton-le-Spring
176
569


Lanchester
312
1,139


Sedgefield
52
176


Teesdale
3
6


Weardale
10
23

INSURANCE FUND.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she will consider calling a conference of business men with a view to finding some better means of utilising the unemployment fund?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir. The uses to which the Unemployment Fund may
be put are prescribed by Statute, and cannot be altered without further legislation, which has to be discussed and decided in Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL WORKING CONDITIONS.

Mr. ALBERY: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour if any steps have been taken to safeguard British labour conditions by negotiating with the Governments of foreign competing countries concerning the general conditions of labour, including wages and hours, with a view to bringing them up to the standard which exists in this country?

Miss BONDFIELD: The International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations has as its object the improvement of international standards of working conditions, and it is the policy of the Government to give the organisation effective support.

Mr. ALBERY: In view of the comparatively long time that must elapse before that can be applied, may I ask whether the Government have any scheme which they intend to put into force in the meantime to protect British labour against foreign sweated labour?

Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. HANNON: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that there is an overhead charge of 25 per cent. of taxation in this country as against competing countries?

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. BRACKEN: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has received any protests from trade unions against the provisions of the Washington Conference limiting working hours to eight per day?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir, certain trade unions have, however, asked that legislation in connection with the Convention should take into account the special conditions of employment of their members.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Has the right hon. Lady received any representations from the railway trade unions?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, Sir,

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask to what effect they were?

Miss BONDFIELD: As I have stated in my answer, I am taking them into account.

Mr. BRACKEN: Will the right hon. Lady consider the employers' representations in particular?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will certainly do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS ACT (DISTRIBUTING TRADES).

Mr. MANDER: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government is prepared to consider the setting up of a Trade Board in the distributive trades?

Miss BONDFIELD: There are already Trade Boards in the milk distributive trade, and inquiries are now in progress in connection with the catering trade. I have no proposals before me with regard to other branches of the distributive trades.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that investigations into this question were started by the first Labour Government, in 1924, is it not really time that something rather more definite was done on the subject?

Mr. DU KES: Has the right hon. Lady received a request from the trade union catering for these employés?

Miss BONDFIELD: I received a request from the Trade Union Congress General Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAMWAY EMPLOYES, HULL (DISMISSAL).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been called to the dismissal, in Hull, at a week's notice, of 130 tramway men who volunteered to operate the tramway service during the general strike and, owing to their efficiency, have been retained ever since in the service; and, in view of the victimisation which is involved by this dismissal, what action she intends to take in the matter?

Miss BONDFIELD: This matter is one for decision by the Hull City Council, and I have no authority to intervene.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Does the right hon. Lady consider this treatment to be in accord with the appeal made by the present Prime Minister and the present Lord Privy Seal, and the promise made on the 16th May, 1926, to the effect that there should be no victimization?

Miss BONDFIELD: Victimisation, whether by employers or otherwise—[Interruption].

Major CARVER: Is the right hon. Lady aware that these men for the last three years have been peacefully following their occupation, and that this victimisation is due to the fact that for the first time there is a Socialist majority on the Hull City Council.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing in that question for which the Minister of Labour has any responsibility.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL - MAITLAND: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether her predecessor, during the later months of 1926, did not get into touch both with employers and with organisations of workers with the object of seeing that cases of victimisation might be gone into and remedied; and does not the right hon. Lady feel that she also might get into touch with the employers in the present case?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Lady has given an answer already.

Miss BONDFIELD: I should like to have notice of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. TOM SMITH: Is the Minister of Labour aware that a good deal of victimisation by employers took place in respect of the activities of certain men?

Mr. SPEAKER: These questions are all irrelevant to the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).

Mr. BENSON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what
is the proportion of prisoners whose sentences expired between 1918 and 1925 and upon whom the cat was inflicted who have subsequently returned to prison?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I regret that I cannot supply this information. In the prison statistics there are no separate figures of men who have at some time before their admission to prison received corporal punishment.

Mr. BENSON: Would it not be worth while to obtain these special statistics in future?

Mr. CLYNES: I will consider that point, but I know that there are real difficulties in the way.

Mr. BENSON: 28.
asked the Home Secretary the number of cases during the past 10 years in which the cat has been inflicted for offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912?

Mr. CLYNES: In the 10 years ended 31st December, 1928, the cat was ordered in five cases. In five other cases the birch was ordered.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN JURORS (CHALLENGE).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has given further consideration to the observations of the Recorder of London in a recent case and calling attention to the Sex Disqualification Removal Act, 1919, and how, in virtue of an ancient right of challenge, the provisions of the Act have been rendered inoperative; and whether he has any proposal to make in the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him on 25th November, when it was pointed out that the rights of men and women in this matter are the same. I have no proposal to make in the matter.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular case, which was the case of a serious offence against a young child, by this right of challenge women were altogether excluded from the jury; does he not think that a case of that kind is eminently one where women ought to sit; and is he not going to take some
steps to remedy that state of affairs, to which the judge at the trial called public attention?

Mr. CLYNES: With the question of a remedy I cannot deal at this moment, but there are many circumstances in this case which I shall be glad to explain to the right hon. Gentleman.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Is the Home Secretary aware that on the 19th November, at Winchester, the Judge called upon two women to leave the jury, and that they were immediately replaced by two men; that that was a case of misdemeanour—

Mr. SPEAKER: The question on the Paper refers to a case before the Recorder of London.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (LOUD SPEAKERS).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to complaints regarding the annoyance caused to residents in the immediate neighbourhood by loud speakers installed in shop premises; whether he is aware that this method of advertising is on the increase; and whether he will direct the police authorities to take steps to mitigate this nuisance?

Mr. CLYNES: Where the nuisance exists, it can be, and in numerous places has been, dealt with by a byelaw for "good rule and government" under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, or the Local Government Act, 1888. Responsibility for taking action, where necessary, rests with the byelaw-making authority, i.e., the County or Borough Council.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this nuisance is a very serious one in London, and cannot he do something to remedy it?

Mr. CLYNES: The responsibility rests on the local councils.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Home Secretary aware that this nuisance was considerably aggravated during the General Election by the Liberal party?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (ADULT EDUCATION).

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether, considering the whole
of the adult education in prisons is carried on by voluntary agency, he will consider having this work taken over by his Department, especially in view of the fact that the work is redemptive and tends to empty our prisons, and consequently reduces the cost of upkeep?

Mr. CLYNES: I agree with my hon. Friend as to the value of this work, and I should be reluctant to take it out of the hands of the voluntary workers, who are rendering valuable service. There are advantages in enlisting the assistance of persons outside the Department for work of this kind.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it not the case that at certain prisons, which are a long distance from available voluntary workers, there are great difficulties in regard to this work at the present time, because of the fact that it has to be done by voluntary workers?

Mr. CLYNES: The work of voluntary workers in this regard is being extended.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUTED DEATH SENTENCES (CRIMINAL LUNATICS).

Mr. SORENSEN: 29.
asked the Home Secretary the figures of married men in criminal lunatic asylums who are serving terms under commuted death sentence?

Mr. CLYNES: Two men now in Broad-moor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, having been transferred there while serving commuted death sentences, have wives living.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PENSIONS (EX-CONSTABLE WILKINS).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 30.
asked the Home Secretary when ex-Constable Wilkins, of the C Division Metropolitan Police, was retired in police orders; whether he was granted a pension; and, if so, the amount?

Mr. CLYNES: The resignation of ex-Police Constable Wilkins appeared in police orders of the 5th November, 1928, with pay to 31st October, 1928. He was granted a pension of £165 4s. 8d. per annum, dating from the 1st November, 1928.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Is the Home Secretary aware that this ex-officer has
admitted in the Courts, with Goddard, corruption and illegal acts; and why was he not prosecuted?

Mr. CLYNES: I can only say that my answer is a complete reply to every point in the question.

Mr. DAY: Was the grant of this pension conditional upon his giving evidence against Goddard?

Mr. CLYNES: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: What character was given to this man?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which the Minister obviously cannot answer now.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSING LAW (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 31.
asked the Home Secretary if there have been any resignations from the Royal Commission on Licensing; and, if so, how many and on what grounds?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir; one member has tendered his resignation on the ground that his employers could not allow him the necessary time to serve on the Royal Commission.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the trade union concerned to reconsider the resignation so as not to deprive him of very valuable help?

Mr. CLYNES: I have invited other names in order that a selection might be made in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BICYCLES (REFLECTORS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that many bicyclists have either no red rear reflectors on their bicycles or else have them placed in a position where they cannot reflect the light; and whether he will take steps to enforce the law in the interests of the bicyclists whose lives are endangered by being invisible?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir: and as I stated in reply to another question recently, I have taken steps by calling the attention of the police to the matter.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also send a letter round to the chief constables of all the counties?

Mr. CLYNES: I imagine the communication would in the first instance go to the chief constables.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also point out to the authorities that many of the reflectors cannot be seen at all?

MOTORING OFFENCES.

Dr. SALTER: 35.
asked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions were instituted by the police for the dangerous driving of motor vehicles in cases where accidents had taken place during the last six months; and how many prosecutions for dangerous driving were instituted in cases where no accident took place during the same period?

Mr. CLYNES: Figures for the last six months are not yet available, and the figures that are collected do not indicate in each case of dangerous driving whether an accident had actually resulted.

Dr. SALTER: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an accident which took place on Friday, 29th November, on the occasion of the opening of the Motor Cycle Show at Olympia, when Mr. Kaye Don and Mr. Bobby Howes engaged in a race on motor cycles in a crowded public thoroughfare, namely, Addison Road, the course being covered twice by each competitor; whether he is aware that Mr. Kaye Don, travelling at great speed, was obliged to mount the pavement to avoid a head-on crash with a taximeter cab and only narrowly escaped injuring several other persons as well as himself; whether the police have instituted any proceedings against the individuals involved; and what steps are taken by the police to prevent racing at high speed on motor cycles in London streets or whether it is an offence against the law?

Mr. CLYNES: The police know nothing of any such incident and the answers to the first three parts of the question are, therefore, in the negative. Any racing on motor cycles in London
streets would, no doubt, involve offences of exceeding the speed limit or driving recklessly or to the danger of the public. It is the duty of the police to take action if any such offences come to their notice, and, in addition to the police employed on ordinary duties officers are specially employed to detect motoring offences.

Dr. SALTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least eight daily papers, London and provincial, reported the incident in full in the terms set out in the question, and, further, that numbers of eye witnesses have written to the Press inquiring why a prosecution has not been undertaken?

Mr. CLYNES: I can only say that I have satisfied myself that the police had no information.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Were any Members of the House present?

Mr. HARRIS: Were not some policemen present, and, if so, why did they not report it to the authorities?

Mr. CLYNES: I have no information on the point.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see if he can get sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution?

Mr. CLYNES: My answer indicates that complete inquiry was made.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Sir K. WOOD: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the number of aliens who have previously been engaged in various commercial undertakings in this country and against whom criminal process has been obtained, but who owing to their continued absence from this country are able to evade such proceedings; and what steps are being taken to bring them to trial?

Mr. CLYNES: The particulars desired are not readily available and, in order that my reply may be as informative as possible, I should be glad if the right hon. Member would postpone the question.

Sir K. WOOD: Shall I put it down for Monday?

Mr. CLYNES: Tuesday.

Captain MACDONALD: 41.
asked the Home Secretary how many deportation orders made during the past six months his Department has been unable to enforce against persons whose last place of residence previous to entering this country was within the jurisdiction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to a very similar question by the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on 28th November last.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST PARTY.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 38.
asked the Horne Secretary whether he has any information regarding recent receipt by the Communist party of Great Britain of money from the Third International: and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action?

Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Sir A. KNOX: Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman had no information of the fact that the Communist party received a large sum from the Third international?

Mr. CLYNES: We have no information, nor has anyone. The statement appeared in the Press I understand, and was denied.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that the money was received in order to start a daily Communist paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has no information.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLUBS (PROSECUTIONS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 39.
asked the Home Secretary how many clubs in the Metropolitan police area have been raided by the police during the past three months; what has been the nature of the offences alleged; how many convictions have been recorded and how many clubs struck off the register; and how these figures compare with the corresponding period of last year?

Mr. CLYNES: As the answer is a detailed one, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

During the three months ended 30th November, 1929, two clubs have been entered under warrant on account of alleged offences against the Licensing Acts. In one of these case convictions resulted, but the club was not ordered to be struck off the register. The other ease is not yet concluded. In the corresponding period of last year 14 clubs were entered under warrant, 11 on account of alleged offences against the Licensing Acts, three on account of alleged offences under the Betting Act. Convictions resulted in all but one of these cases, and 11 of the clubs were ordered to be struck off the register.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

PETITIONS OF INCORPORATION.

Mr. T. SMITH: 40.
asked the Home Secretary whether, now that the final Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government has been received, it is proposed to proceed with those petitions of incorporation which have been before the Privy Council for some considerable time and held up pending the final Report or whether they will have to await new legislation?

Mr. CLYNES: I understand that the question is at present under consideration by my right hon. Friend, the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: When may we expect a statement from the Government on the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: If, later on, a question is put down, I will do my best to supply an answer.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Next week?

Mr. CLYNES: Probably.

OFFICERS (RECRUITMENT).

Mr. SIMON: 84.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will appoint a Departmental Committee on the recruitment of local government officers in accordance with the recommendations of the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This matter is receiving my consideration with other recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEEPSTAKES.

Major COURTAULD: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Government propose to adopt the same attitude towards Derby sweepstakes as that laid down by the then Home Secretary in this House on 2nd May, 1929?

Mr. CLYNES: The practice for many years past has been not to advise interference with private or quasi-private sweepstakes honestly conducted and, after full consideration, I am of opinion that this practice should continue.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNTING.

Mr. FREEMAN: 43.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the cruelty involved by hunting, he will arrange for a public inquiry into the whole question with a view to the abolition of all forms of sport in which the suffering of animals is involved?

Mr. CLYNES: In the present state of public business I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by setting up a body to inquire into so wide and controversial a subject as is suggested. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a Motion on the Order Paper with regard to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee to consider one of its aspects, namely, the subject of deer hunting with hounds.

Mr. FREEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation to place before him some of the reasons for the growing outcry that there is against this so-called form of sport?

Mr. CLYNES: I am well aware of the reasons and am not lacking in information, but in the present state of public business action will be impossible, and a deputation will not be of very great service.

Major COLFOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman use the opportunity afforded by the Christmas Recess to get some personal experience?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: 44 and 49.
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) what steps he proposes to take to secure the additional men teachers who will be required to teach the extra 200,000 boys who will be retained in the elementary schools as a result of the raising of the school age;
(2) whether he is aware that, owing to the large excess of women teachers over men in the elementary schools, numbers of junior boys of ages 11 plus and 12 minus are put under the charge of women teachers; that this is not satisfactory either to the parents or to the boys themselves, especially as far as it affects their sports and games; that the difficulty will be accentuated by the raising of the school age; and whether he will take steps to recruit a supply of men teachers in these schools sufficient to ensure that a master is available for each class of these junior boys?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I am fully alive to the importance of securing an adequate proportion of men among the additional teachers who will be required when the school age is raised. Steps have been taken to secure an increased number of admissions to the training colleges, and it may reassure the hon. Member to know that of the additional students so admitted half are men.

Lord E. PERCY: Is not the additional number this quarter as compared with last quarter very small indeed?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: No. There is a great increase in the number and the proportion of men is as high as that of women.

Lord E. PERCY: Am I not right in saying that the increase is not much more than one or two hundred?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: It is much more than that. If the noble Lord puts down a question, I will tell him how many.

Mr. EDE: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many teachers there are in State-aided secondary schools; and how many have undergone a course of training extending over one year or more?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: On the 31st March, 1928, there were 20,102 full-time teachers in secondary schools on the grant list, of whom 8,671 are known to have passed through a course of training of at least one year's duration. In addition a considerable proportion of the specialist teachers of art, music, handicraft, domestic subjects and physical training have undergone such a course, though precise statistics in respect of them are not available.

Mr. EDE.: Will my right hon. Friend consider making a regulation whereby the future appointments to secondary schools shall be from those who have undergone a course of training?

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (ACCOMMODATION).

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state, in respect of each county, what proportion of children over 14 years of age can be accommodated on the appointed day in reorganised schools in which there are facilities for giving technical instruction and competent teachers for giving such instruction; and what proportion of such children will have to stay on in small rural schools after they attain the age of 14?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I must await the authorities' programmes before I can Form an estimate of the extent to which re-organisation will have been completed by 1st April, 1931. But, as I indicated in the Debate on the Motion of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) on the 13th November, there are good reasons for believing that in most counties adequate provision will by then have been made.

Lieut. - Colonel WINDSOR - CLIVE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received representations from several county councils asking for the postponement of the appointed day on the ground that they cannot provide the necessary accommodation by the appointed day?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, I have not received any yet.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is proposed to develop a new kind of education in connection with the training of school children in the final
years of their tuition when the school-leaving age is raised; and, if so, what this form of instruction will be?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to Circular 1404 (of which I am sending him a copy), which indicates the nature of the instruction which it is my aim to secure for the older children.

Mr. SMITHERS: 58.
asked the President, of the Board of Education if he can now state the estimated increase in elementary school places caused by raising the school-leaving age to 15; what is the estimated increase in the number of teachers; and what is the estimated cost of the necessary new buildings for each of the three years after the raising of the age?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: As I have previously explained, I must await the authorities' programmes for the next three years before I can supply the particulars for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. SMITHERS: Are we to take it that the Government have launched upon this enormous increase in education without knowing approximately what the cost will be, or what further numbers of teachers and buildings will be wanted?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Certainly not.

Mr. SMITHERS: Cannot we have an answer.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the question.

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.

Mr. MANSFIELD: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has considered the burden that will be placed upon the managers of all non-provided schools throughout the country by the raising of the school age to 15; and if the Government propose to grant assistance to the managers of these non-provided schools, as well as to the provided schools, in order to enable them to carry out the alterations and improvements to their schools which are necessary in order that they may be able to make satisfactory arrangements for the attendance at school of additional children?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the answer which I gave to a similar question on the 31st October.

EDUCATION BILL.

Mr. HARRIS: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education when the proposed Education Bill will be introduced; and whether it is proposed to submit it for Second Reading before Christmas?

Lord E. PERCY: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education when he expects to be able to introduce the Education Bill?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I hope that the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members next Thursday. It is not proposed to take the Second Reading before Christmas.

Mr. HARRIS: Will a Memorandum be published at the same time dealing with the financial aspect of the raising of the school age and also dealing with maintenance allowances?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have promised to make a statement in answer to a question.

Lord E. PERCY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what opportunity he is going to take for making his statement?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I presume I shall answer a question about it.

SCHOOL Boons.

Mr. RAMSAY: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education is satisfied that geographical and historical text-books now in use have been brought thoroughly up to date; and whether he is taking any steps to give effect to the suggestion recently emanating from Canada that there should be a conference of publishers of school books in this country and the Dominions?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am not entirely satisfied on this matter. The recent report of the Board's Consultative Committee on Books in Public Elementary Schools, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, makes several references to the point, and I sincerely hope that the conclusions of that committee are receiving the careful consideration of all those concerned in the production of text-
books for schools. With regard to the second part of the question, I do not think that I could convene a conference of publishers of school books, but I shall be glad to use my good offices, if I am invited to do so, to bring the publishers of school books into touch with the representatives of the Dominion Governments.

DULWICH COLLEGE (SCHOLARSHIPS).

Mr. COVE: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the number of London County Council junior scholars admitted to Dulwich College has been reduced since the approval of the new scheme for that foundation by the Board of Education; if so, what is the extent of the reduction; and does he propose to make representations to the governors that they should retain free-place admissions at their former level?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The scheme took effect as from the 30th March, 1928. I am informed that in the school year 1927–28, the number of awards at Dulwich College of County Minor Scholarships (comprising Junior, Supplementary and Intermediate Scholarships) was 27, and in the school years 1928–29 and 1929–30 the numbers were 36 and 19, respectively. The total number of these awards held at the college remains considerably above 100, the number below which the Board have informed the governors that they hope it will not be allowed to fall, and therefore I see no occasion yet to make representations to the governors in the matter.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).

Mr. SMITHERS: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Education if it is the policy of the Government at once to develop facilities for free secondary education; if so, will he state to what extent this policy has been put into effect; what schemes have been approved since the Government took office; and what is the estimated cost?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave on the 31st October to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is this another of the election promises of the Socialist Government?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Certainly not.

HIGHER EDUCATION (EX-ELEMENTARY PUPILS).

Sir N. CRATTAN-DOYLE: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Education what proportion of students at present receiving instruction in secondary schools and universities, assisted by grants from his Department, are former elementary school pupil; now holders of free places or in receipt of grants, bursaries, or scholarships?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: On the 31st March, 1928, 40.9 per cent. of the full-time pupils in grant-aided secondary schools were free pupils who had attended public elementary schools for at least two years immediately preceding their admission to secondary schools. I have no precise figures as to the number of ex-elementary pupils at universities, but during the years 1924–1928, out of an annual average number of 3,434 pupils proceeding direct from grant-earning secondary schools to universities, 2,150 were ex-elementary school pupils.

EVENING SCHOOLS AND INSTITUTES.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of pupils engaged in ordinary daytime occupations who are at present enjoying free training or education in evening schools and institutes assisted by grants from his Department?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am afraid that the statistics asked for by the hon. Member are not available.

GIRLS' CHURCH SCHOOL. (CHEAM).

Mr. EDE: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has received any complaints as to the structural condition of the Sutton and Cheam, Cheam Common, Girls' Church School; and, if so, what action he proposes taking in relation thereto?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir. The attention of the local education authority has been called to this matter, and they are at present in communication with the school managers.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATRIMONIAL CASES (FAMILY COURTS).

Mr. SORENSEN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the growing dissatisfaction of the men and women compelled to take their matrimonial troubles to the Police Courts with that method of administration, he will grant facilities this Session for the Bill to establish Courts of Domestic Relations (Family Courts) to deal with these cases?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): There is no such Bill now before the House.

Mr. SORENSEN: If a Bill were introduced, would the Government give it assistance?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will provide this House with an opportunity to discuss the business of the forthcoming Naval Conference before its assembly?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 2nd December in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Major Ross).

Mr. KNIGHT: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it seemly to withdraw this grave problem from discussion in the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT (VOTES OF CONFIDENCE).

Mr. MANGER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to indicate before a Division is taken in the House those votes which will be regarded as Votes of Confidence by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: If questions are addressed to me as the point arises, I shall be happy to give an answer.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that there is no Member of the House who desires to sec the present Government displaced—I mean on this side of the House—will the Prime Minister give the House some guidance in order that such a catastrophe may not arise?

The PRIME MINISTER: Under those circumstances, I shall naturally not give a definite reply.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Do not these questions show that the Liberals are prepared to bark but are afraid to bite?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENSIVE ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the navy of the United States of America is no longer taken into account in fixing the size of the British Navy, he will state the particular countries against which Great Britain is arming in respect of the Army, Navy, and Air Force?

The PRIME MINISTER: Great Britain is not arming against any country. The extent of the defensive establishment maintained by His Majesty's Government is decided upon after consideration of every element that necessitates its existence.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of specifically denying the imputation in this question that we have ever fixed our Navy in relation to the size of that of the United States?

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

CASUALS (DIETARY).

Mr. DAY: 66.
asked the Minister of Health, whether any representations have been received by him from boards of guardians or committees asking his permission to increase the dietary issued to able-bodied casuals where it is considered necessary; and whether he has considered the introduction of any variations of the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, so that increased dietary can be issued in cases where it is considered necessary for the maintenance of normal health and strength?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Representations on this matter have been received from five boards of guardians and one vagrancy committee during the last four years. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that I have recently appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the administration of the laws relating to the relief of the casual poor and to make representa-
tions having special regard to certain classes of persons including those suffering from physical disability. I hope that the Committee will be able to report by the end of the winter.

Mr. DAY: Does my right hon. Friend not think that, pending that report, some discretionary powers should be given to guardians or committees for dealing with the matter dealt with in this question?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am prepared to consider that matter if application is made by boards of guardians.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Is this committee also reviewing the dietary issued to children?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The committee is dealing with the whole problem of the casual poor, and, as far as children come within that category, the matter will be included.

TEST WORK, PLYMOUTH.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether the inquiry which he has set up into test work has yet investigated the conditions which prevail at Prince Rock, Plymouth; and when another system is likely to be established?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Prince Rock scheme has not been investigated since the general inquiry was set on foot. I am not yet in a position to reply to the last part of the question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the inclement weather and the long distances that these men have to walk, often in very bad health, will the right hon. Gentleman treat this as a matter of urgency?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There are other places where the weather is equally inclement, and I have no desire to hold up the inquiry, which is proceeding as rapidly as possible.

Mr. MOSES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is receiving the consideration of the local authorities?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that the matter is before the Poor Law authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPEED BOATS (REGULATIONS).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the fact that there are no effective regulations for the operations of speed boats at seaside places, he proposes to invest local authorities with full powers to deal with these craft?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the boats which the hon. Member has in mind are those carrying passengers for hire, local authorities have substantial powers under the Public Health Acts, and it rests with them to exercise them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

HOSPITALS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 68.
asked the Minister of Health if he will furnish a Return of the numbers and beds, comparable with that given in the House of Commons on 1st March, 1926, for hospitals provided by local authorities, voluntary hospitals aided by local authorities, institutions provided by Poor Law authorities, and giving, for the latest possible year, the expenditure in each of the three classes?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will circulate in, the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available on these points.

Following is the information:

So far as general hospitals are concerned, the information in my Department indicates that one large general hospital, with 875 beds, and three relatively small accident hospitals, have been provided by local authorities, but the total number of beds is not known. Local authorities are empowered by Section 64 of the Public Health Act, 1925, to make reasonable subscriptions or donations to voluntary hospitals to the extent of the produce of a penny rate. The amount subscribed by local authorities under that section in 1927–28 was £25,000. Under Section 38 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, boards of guardians may, with my consent, make contributions to public hospitals. In 1927–28 the amount contributed under this Section was £44,000.

The information with regard to hospitals of the other classes referred to in the question is as follows:

A.—Hospitals provided by Local Authorities.


—
Number.
Beds.
Expenditure of Local Authorities in 1927–28.





£


1. For tuberculosis
166
12,787
1,802,000*


2. For acute infectious diseases
987†
36,833†
3,490,000†


3. Maternity hospitals (not including maternity wards in general hospitals or Poor Law
Institutions).
79
1,034
201,447


4. Babies' hospitals
11
253


* Including the expenditure in connection with beds for tuberculosis mentioned in the following note.


† At 44 of these hospitals there are 2,205 beds for the treatment of tuberculosis. The expenditure on these beds is excluded from item (2).

B.—Voluntary Hospitals aided by Local Authorities.


—
Number.
Beds.
Expenditure of Local Authorities in 1927–28.





£


1. Tuberculosis hospitals
138
9,202
825,000†


2. General hospitals—




(a) Used in connection with tuberculosis schemes.
164
*


(b) Used in connection with venereal diseases schemes.
130
*
Not available.


(c) Maternity sections used in connection with maternity and child welfare
schemes.
22
267
78,000


3. Maternity hospitals (not including maternity sections in general hospitals).
65
1,323


4. Babies' hospitals
12
347


* Available beds used as and when required.


† Including expenditure of the Welsh National Memorial Association on sanitoria and hospitals.


The figures under the above headings are exclusive of accommodation in homes for unmarried mothers and their babies, observation wards in connection with maternity and child welfare centres, and convalescent homes. Those under B (2) (c) are exclusive of accommodation used by local Authorities in general hospitals for special or complicated maternity cases, as regards which figures are not available.

C.—Institutions provided by Poor Law Authorities.


—
Number.
Beds.
Expenditure of Local Authorities in 1927–28.





£


1. Institutions wholly for the sick, exclusive of institutions for mental cases
73
40,000
4,119,000


2. General institutions (with a total accommodation of some 188,000).
652
83,000*
8,625,000†


* Beds in infirm and sick wards.


† Total expenditure on general institutions.

REFUSE DISPOSAL, LONDON.

Mr. OLDFIELD: 71.
asked the Minister of Health if he has yet received the Report of the committee considering the question of the disposal of London refuse?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. I recently met the committee and asked for an early Report know that the Committee are doing their best to comply with this request, but they have to make some further investigations before they are in a position to report.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the antiquated methods of collecting refuse employed by many local authorities in London; and, if so, whether he can take any action with a view to a general improvement of these methods in the interests of the general public?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 28th ultimo to a question by the hon. Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day).

INFANT MORTALITY, LONDON BOROUGHS.

Mr. WEST: 73.
asked the Minister of Health what were the infantile mortality rates fur 1928 in East Ham, North Kensington, and the Norland Ward of the Royal Borough of Kensington?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The infant mortality rate for the County Borough of East Ham was 49 per 1,000 births in 1928. The Registrar-General has no statistics for separate parts or wards of the metropolitan boroughs, but according to the annual report of the medical officer of health, the infant mortality rates in 1928 for North Kensington and the Norland Ward if the Borough of Kensington were 93 and 115, respectively.

Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rates of infant mortality in the Royal Borough of Kensington are very much above the infant mortality rates in Poplar?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The figures which I have given show that that is so.

VACCINATION.

Mr. FREEMAN: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to announce any concessions in respect of the Vaccination Acts, which he promised to consider after receiving a deputation in October last on the matter; and
whether he will arrange for a public inquiry into the present position, in view of the fact that more than 60 per cent. of the population claim exemption for their children at birth?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have under consideration the whole subject of vaccination, including the desirability of some further inquiry, but I am not at present in a position to make any announcement on this question. I may point out that the latest figures available, namely, those for 1927, show that in that year, not 60 per cent., but just over 40 per cent. of the parents made declarations of conscientious objection to vaccination.

Mr. FREEMAN: In view of the large proportion of the population who do not accept this compulsory basis, will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting the matter on a voluntary basis?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That will be a matter for inquiry.

SMALL-POX (STEAMSHIP "TUSCANIA").

Mr. FREEMAN: 91.
asked the Minister of Health how many cases of small-pox occurred in this country as the result of the outbreak on the steamship "Tuscania," how many of these were fatal, the districts in which the cases occurred, and the vaccinal condition of each case?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As the answer to this question involves a number of figures and includes a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Thirty-five cases of small-pox occurred in England and Wales as a result of the outbreak of the disease in the steamship "Tuscania" in March last. Of these 35 cases, 21 were vaccinated, 6 revaccinated and 6 unvaccinated; the vaccinal condition of one was doubtful, and no information is available as to the vaccinal condition of the remaining case. Of the vaccinated cases all but two were persons of 19 years of age and upwards, who had been vaccinated only in infancy. Among these 35 cases, 11 deaths occurred. Three of the 6 unvaccinated cases, 7 of the 21 vaccinated cases, and the case whose vaccinal condition is unknown, proved fatal. There were no deaths among the persons known to have been revaccinated.

The following statement shows the districts in which these cases occurred, and the ages and vaccinal condition of the patients.

County and District.
Vaccinal condition at time of infection.
Age.


London:




Kensington
Vaccinated
21


Paddington
Vaccinated
37


St. Marylebone
Re-vaccinated
37


Stepney
Vaccinated
34


Wandsworth
Vaccinated
25


Wandsworth
Vaccinated
19


Westminster
Vaccinated
30


Essex:




East Ham
Re-vaccinated
35


West Ham
Vaccinated
41


West Ham
Unvaccinated
18


Grays Thurrock Ur an District.
Vaccinated
38


Chelmsford Rural District.
Doubtful
40


Middlesex:




Acton
Vaccinated
28


Acton
Unvaccinated
36


Hendon Urban District.
Re-vaccinated
30


Teddington Urban District.
Re-vaccinated
43


Kent Gillingham
Vaccinated
29


Sussex:




Brighton
Vaccinated
36


Brighton
Vaccinated
45


Hants:




Farnborough Urban District.
Vaccinated
7


Somerset:




Clutton Rural District.
Re-vaccinated
38


Lancashire:




Liverpool Port Sanitary District.
Vaccinated
25


Manchester
Vaccinated
34


Rochdale
Unvaccinated
34


Rochdale
Vaccinated
65


Rochdale
Unvaccinated
32


Colne
Vaccinated
52


Eccles
No information available.
65


Stretford Urban District.
Re-vaccinated
51


Cheshire:




Sale Urban District
Unvaccinated
44


Yorkshire:




Keighley
Vaccinated
23


Worcestershire:




Pershore Rural District.
Vaccinated
5


Lincolnshire:




Lincoln
Vaccinated
37


Cambridgeshire:




Cambridge
Vaccinated
30


Flint:




Prestatyn Urban District.
Unvaccinated
14

MENTAL INSTITUTIONS.

Mr. EDE: 90.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have provided institutions for the residential care of the mentally defective; and how many have not up to the present made that provision?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Twenty-eight local authorities have provided institutions for the residential care of mental defectives. Eighteen have schemes in progress. Seventy-eight have not up to the present made any institutional provision of their own.

IMPORTED PRESERVED FRUIT.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: 93.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that large quantities of fruit preserved in sulphur dioxide are being imported and sold here in competition with Home-grown fruit; and whether any steps are being taken by his Department to restrict the use of fruit thus deleteriously preserved?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Preservatives Regulations of my Department prohibit the importation of fruit (other than dried fruit) which is preserved with sulphur dioxide unless it is intended for conversion into jam, or into crystallised, glacé or cured fruit. The quantities of sulphur dioxide in these articles as sold to the public are limited to the proportions of 40 and 100 parts per million respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 95.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that, if a co-operative society invests reserve funds directly in the purchase of land, the income it derives from such land is liable to taxation; whereas if it invests such funds in the shares of a limited liability company making profits from land the income it derives from such shares is not subject to taxation; and, if so, whether the Government propose to take any steps to do away with this discrimination?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I am aware of the facts stated in the question but I cannot argue the subject of
the taxation of Co-operative Societies at Question Time. I would remind the hon. Member that opportunity for its discussion will arise in the course of the Debates on next year's Finance Bill.

Mr. LEWIS: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied as to the reasonableness of this discrimination?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have already stated that I cannot argue this at Question Time. An opportunity will be provided next year on the Financial Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSURANCE FUND.

Sir K. WOOD: 69.
asked the Minister of Health the additional benefits that are payable to members of the Navy, Army, and Air Force insurance fund?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The additional benefits payable to members of the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund who continue their membership after discharge from His Majesty's Forces are an increase of the normal rates of cash benefits by 4s. a week sickness benefit, 2s. a week disablement benefit and 8s. maternity benefit; payment of the whole cost of certain treatment benefits, namely, dental treatment and the provision of artificial teeth; ophthalmic treatment and the provision of spectacles; and the provision of medical and surgical appliances.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as a very satisfactory statement, and does it not show that the largest amounts of benefit are now being paid?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Of course, it is highly satisfactory.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect all that he has said about the Army and the Navy?

Major COLFOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman urge his party to contradict misstatements in their election leaflets?

Major WOOD: Is it not the case that very much higher benefits would be available for these men if the late Government had not run away with over £1,000,000 belonging to this Fund?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH (TOWN PLANNING DIVISION).

Mr. BOYCE: 77.
asked the Minister of Health the date on which his town planning department was set up; the cost per year since that date; the number of the present staff; and the duties carried out, by the department?

Mr. GREENWOOD: A division was set up by the late Local Government Board in 1910 to carry out the whole of the work arising under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909: a separate division for town planning only was not created until 1922. The duties of the town planning division comprise the consideration of questions of town planning policy, the approval of town planning schemes and matters incidental thereto. The staff at present numbers 26. The cost for each year since 1922 is approximately as follows:



…
…
…
£


1922–23
…
…
…
8,050


1923–24
…
…
…
8,300


1924–25
…
…
…
9,300


1925–26
…
…
…
10,600


1926–27
…
…
…
10,800


1927–28
…
…
…
12,500


1928–29
…
…
…
12,500


1929–30
…
…
…
13,200

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated on a recent public occasion that town planning was now out of date? If that be so, what is the point in keeping on this department at the public expanse?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I said that town planning alone was out of date. The proof of the value of this department is that it is considering regional planning as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. WELLOCK: 78.
asked the Minister of Health when the application forms for pensions and allowances under the new Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, will be available in the post offices?

Mr. TINKER: 88.
asked the Minister of Health when the forms and instructions to enable applicants to make claims under the amended Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act will be ready?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Forms of applications for pensions payable under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, as from 2nd January, 1930, are now available at all post offices. Forms of application for, and leaflets regarding, pensions payable under the Act from 1st July, 1930, and onwards will be available at post offices early in January.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is plainly stated on the face of the form the limited number of widows who can apply, in order to avoid disappointment to those who have been shut out?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

TOWN PLANNING (GREATER LONDON REGIONAL COMMITTEE).

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: 79.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is providing office accommodation for the staff of the Greater London regional planning committee; if so, what is the estimated cost; the number of the present staff and the respective salaries paid; under whose control are the offices and staff; and what is the limit of the expenditure?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The office accommodation provided by me is negligible. It consists of the partial use by one of the staff of the Committee of a room occupied by an officer of my Department who, in addition to other duties, acts as Secretary to the Committee, and, as such, receives no salary. Accommodation for the remaining staff is provided elsewhere at the expense of the Committee. The number of the present staff is six, and the annual salaries and remuneration amount to approximately £2,650. The offices and staff of the Committee are under their control. The expenditure of the Committee is limited by the contributions which the constituent authorities have agreed to pay.

AGED PEOPLE.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the possibility of encouraging the erection of a limited number of small houses for aged people, similar to those erected by the miners of Northumberland and Durham, which could be let at a cheap rent?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already in mind the possibility of some action in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend, but I would ask him to await the introduction of the legislation which I have in contemplation.

OVERCROWDING (CENSUS STANDARD).

Mr. SIMON: 82.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the standard of overcrowding adopted by the Registrar-General in the Census and by the majority of medical officers of health: and whether he will arrange for a more satisfactory standard to be adopted at the next Census, taking into account, in particular, the provision of the necessary bedroom accommodation to provide for the separation of the sexes?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This matter is receiving my attention in connection with the preparations for the forthcoming Census.

OCCUPIED HOUSES.

Mr. SIMON: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that no information is available as to the number of occupied houses in the country since the date of the last Census; and whether he will in future cause annual statistics to be published as regards this vital matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the fact stated, but I may draw the hon. Member's attention to the annual statistics of new buildings assessed to Income Tax (Schedule "A") for the first time, which appear in the Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and, in a summarised form, in the Board of Trade's Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom. I do not think that the value of the annual publication of the particulars to which he refers would be sufficient to justify the labour and expense involved.

FURNISHED ROOMS (SUB-LETTING).

Mr. ALPASS: 85.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the excessive rents often charged under the sub-letting of furnished rooms in which the furniture is of a scanty character, he will consider the advisability of including provisions in the contemplated housing legislation which would enable local authorties to control these lettings with greater equity?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Rent Restrictions Acts already contain provisions directed against the abuse of over-charging by tenants who sub-let furnished rooms, and the County Courts are empowered, on the application of the lessee, to order that the excess amount charged shall be irrecoverable and that repayment shall be made of excessive amounts already paid. Any extension of these powers would involve amendment of the Acts in question, and, as I have previously stated, it will not be practicable to introduce such amending legislation at present. But I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these restrictions are absolutely ignored as to subletting and overcharge?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Aggrieved persons have their rights in the Courts if they wish to avail themselves of them.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: They cannot afford it.

EAST AND CENTRAL LONDON.

Major NATHAN: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of conditions of overcrowding in Bethnal Green and certain adjoining areas, and of special housing problems of congested industrial areas in East and Central London, he will immediately set up a special committee to report, with the least possible delay, on facts and make recommendations for necessary remedial action?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) on the 28th ultimo, of which I am sending him a copy.

RENTS, SALTNEY.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 92.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called by the Hawarden Rural District Council, in the County of Flint, to the different rents paid by occupiers of houses on contiguous sites at Saltney, in the rural district, under the 1919 and 1924 Acts, respectively; whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists among tenants of the houses erected under the earlier Act on account of the fact that they are paying higher
rents than the rents paid for similar houses erected under the 1924 Act; and whether, having regard to the hardship suffered by the tenants of the former houses, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to authorise the local authority to reduce the rents of the houses erected under the earlier Act?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that the rents charged for the houses at East Saltney erected by the Hawarden Rural District Council with financial assistance under the Housing Act of 1924 are 6s. 3d. for non-parlour type and 8s. 9d. for parlour type, and these rents have been determined by the council as representing approximately the average rents prevailing in the district for pre-War houses. The agreed rents for the 1919 Act houses are 6s. 6d.and 9s. The prescribed methods of fixing rents differ in respect of the two Acts, the main difference being that for houses under the 1919 Act regard must be had to any superiority of such houses in accommodation, construction or amenities as compared with houses previously built in the district, but if my information is correct, the difference in rent in this case is trifling only.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATIONS.

Mr. ALLEN: 96.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the proposed substantial reduction in German income tax and tax on real property, he will state the total amount which the British taxpayers have foregone in favour of the German taxpayers as a result of the Dawes and Young plans?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I do not agree with the implications contained in the hon. Member's question. The two plans do no more than reduce the obligation upon Germany to an amount which according to competent judges it is within the capacity of Germany to discharge externally.

Mr. ALLEN: May I ask whether the German tax reductions do not indicate that they could afford to pay far more, to the consequent relief of the British taxpayer?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have no information as to the accuracy of the statements made in regard to the tax reductions in
Germany, but the experts on the Dawes and Young Committees took all relevant facts into consideration and fixed the amount at what they thought was within the capacity of Germany to pay externally.

Captain EDEN: Is not the amount announced very much less than that which the right hon. Gentleman described as the inadequate minimum under the Balfour Note? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have no hesitation in answering the question. There is no connection between the fixing of the German annuities and the Balfour Note. They stand quite separately.

Mr. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate a White Paper setting out in detail the gains and losses of the British taxpayer under the Hague Plan assuming it operates, which is perhaps unlikely, for more than five or 10 years?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The matter has not vet been finally settled. There will be a resumed conference I expect early next year, and after the matter has been definitely settled I see no objection to publishing the information for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. WISE: Would it not be better that we should be informed of the facts before it is finally settled?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think the facts settled in previous conferences are fairly well known, and the Protocol was published as a White Paper some months ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. TOUT: 97.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the uncertainty as to whether the silk and artificial silk duties will be retained or discontinued in the next Budget is seriously holding up business in artificial silk goods; and whether, in view of the increased unemployment and under-employment in the cotton trade which will result from such uncertainty until the exact position is known, he can see his way to make an early announcement of his intentions in the matter?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Representations
in this sense have been received both as regards the silk and artificial silk duties and as regards other duties, but I cannot anticipate the Budget decisions in relation to these matters. I would, however, point out that the present difficulties of the textile trades cannot be attributed entirely to fiscal uncertainty. As I have frequently pointed out, uncertainty is always inseparable from a tariff policy and for this policy the present Government has no kind of responsibility. But, in view of the possible bearing of any feeling of uncertainty on the problem of employment, I am considering a number of different suggestions applicable to different trades which have been made to me as to the procedure that might be adopted in the event of the repeal of the duties affecting them in the next Budget, so as to mitigate any anxiety which may exist in these trades and enable business to be carried on without interruption. While I cannot commit myself as to any of these suggestions I hope that it may be possible for me to make some statement on the whole matter before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed is obviously one of first-class importance, may I ask whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] May I ask for an answer? I did not want to seem discourteous to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, as it concerns the business of the House, perhaps I had better put the question to the Prime Minister.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman a has had sufficient Parliamentary experience to know that a question like that cannot be answered on the spur of the moment. It is a matter which requires some consideration.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will gladly repeat the question presently, when I put a question to the Prime Minister about business.

Oral Answers to Questions — THAMES FLOODS (PREVENTION WORK).

Mr. BOYCE: (by Private Notice) asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has anything to communicate with regard to the possibility of the flooding
of private dwelling-houses and other buildings in the London area; what steps his Department has taken, or is taking, to prevent such an occurrence; and whether he can definitely assure the House that such steps are adequate?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to reply. The responsibility in connection with flood prevention works rests with the London County Council, not with the Government. The London County Council has been taking special measures since the flood of January of last year to strengthen the protective works. I am advised that there is no present reason to expect any abnormal difficulties.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not the fact that the London County Council have done very little to remedy this matter, their excuse being that the powers are in the hands of private owners? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking urgent measures to deal with what is a very real serious danger at the moment?

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not the fact that the London Conservancy Board have already a scheme prepared which they are quite ready to put into operation if the Government will only introduce the necessary legislation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is quite clear that the major responsibility rests with the London County Council. If the works that are necessary come within the category of those to which the Lord Privy Seal has referred, then a speedier method of legislation will no doubt be applied. With regard to the Thames Conservancy Board, I understand that the scheme is now the subject of very sympathetic consideration by my right hon. Friend.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on the occasion of the last floods his predecessor at the Ministry of Health called together the local authorities concerned, with a view, if possible, of devising some further steps and precautions? Does he not think that in the present exceptional circumstances he might see what can be done in the same direction?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That committee of investigation by engineers sent back a report, which is in the hands of the London County Council.

Sir F. HALL: Does it not show that the London County Council, in spite of what the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) says, have carried out their duties in a perfectly satisfactory manner?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What is being done with regard to the pictures and drawings in the Tate Gallery in order to prevent a repetition of what occurred last winter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is a question that should go to the First Commissioner of Works.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understood that the original question was addressed to him and that you were answering.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Would the Prime Minister tell us what are now his proposals for business in the present sitting, and, with reference to that, will he give us an opportunity for discussing the very important statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced that he would make before the Session ended; and, further, what business it is proposed to take when the House resumes its sitting after Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps I might deal, first, with the middle question. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to wait until he hears the statement before criticising it in the sense that it will require to be discussed in the House. When the statement is made, if the right hon. Gentleman cares to repeat his question, I shall gladly give him an answer. Regarding business—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask what opportunity the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to use for making his statement?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman is really exaggerating the importance of the statement. He must wait and hear it. Probably the most convenient way will be to make my statement in answer to a question.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman had a question put to him to-day with regard to the anxiety caused by a previous statement of his,
I think in November, that certain Duties would be repealed. To-day, he says that he is considering methods which will allay any anxiety if those Duties are repealed. Surely, the House must have some opportunity of discussing, and if necessary criticising, these suggestions which he proposes to make. I ask for that opportunity.

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole point is that these suggestions will not come into operation until after the Budget. I should advise the right hon. Gentleman to wait until he sees what takes place. With regard to business, as a result of conversations up to now through the usual channels, the following is the programme of business up to Christmas which I am able to announce:

Monday: Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, completion of further stages; Supplementary Estimates—the Ministry of Labour and Department of Health (Scotland); and the formal setting up of the Committee of Ways and Means will follow.

Tuesday: Coal Mines Bill, Second Reading; Reports of Supplementary Estimates taken on the 16th, and of Ways and Means Resolutions.

Wednesday: Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Beading, after Private Member's Motions have been disposed of.

Thursday: Coal Mines Bill, completion of Second Reading Debate, followed by the Consolidated Fund Bill further stages.

Friday: Report stage of Supplementary Estimate for the salary of the Lord Privy Seal.

Monday (23rd): Available for discussion of the Government Policy. I understand that the Opposition would like to, raise the questions of Egypt, and the Singapore base.

Tuesday (24th): The House will meet at 11 a.m. and the Motion for the Adjournment will be taken.

On any day, if time permits, other Orders will be taken. The House will resume on 21st January, and the programme for the first week will be:

Tuesday, 21st January: Arbitration (Foreign Awards) Bill, further stages. Committee of Supply—Supplementary
Estimates: (1) Ministry of Labour; (2) Sugar Beet Subsidy. These Supplementary Estimates providing the money required to implement the Unemployment Insurance Bill now before Parliament, and additional money for the Sugar Beet Subsidy, will it is hoped, be in the hands of Members before the Recess.

Thursday, 23rd January: Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading and Money Resolution; Report of Supplementary Estimates taken on the 21st. I repeat the usual safeguard, that on any day, if time permits, other Orders will be taken.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Obviously, I cannot discuss the programme of the right hon. Gentleman. He used a rather careful phrase in his opening observations, that, as a result of conversations, he was enabled to announce that this would be the programme. No one must suppose that it is an agreed programme. We think it is really an outrage on the House of Commons that, with regard to the Bill which is before us, discussion in a party caucus should be substituted for discussion on the Floor of the House, and that the right hon. Gentleman should propose to take £3,500,000 of Supplementary Estimates after Eleven o'clock. With regard to Monday, 23rd December, we desire to reserve our rights to raise whatever questions we like. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he proposes to do with Private Members' time on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is Friday of next week. Up to the present nothing has been put down, but we will safeguard ourselves between now and Friday.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: According to my information, the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that there is nothing put down. However that may be, can he tell us when he proposes to move the Motion to take Private Members' time?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not yet.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Arising out of the statement on business, will the statement that is to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer allay the uncertainty as to the fate of certain Duties after the next Budget?

Mr. SPEAKAR: A similar question has already been answered.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of

Supply, and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 203.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[3.58 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Granville, E.
Mansfield, W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gray, Milner
Marcus, M.


Alpass, J. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Markham, S. F.


Angell, Norman
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marley, J.


Arnott, John
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mathers, George


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Matters, L. W.


Ayles, Walter
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Messer, Fred


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Middleton, G.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Milner. J.


Barr, James
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Batey, Joseph
Harbison, T. J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hardie, George D.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Bellamy, Albert
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mort, D. L.


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Moses, J. J. H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Haycock, A. W.
Muff, G.


Benson, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Murnin, Hugh


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Harriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bromfield, William
Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Brooke, W.
Hollins, A.
Palin, John Henry


Brothers, M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Paling, Wilfrid


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palmer, E. T.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hutchison. Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Perry, S. F.


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs. George
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Burgess, F. G.
Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Pole, Major D. G.


Calne, Derwent Hall.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Price, M. P.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Charleton, H. C.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cluse, W. S.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashlord)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kinley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cove, William G.
Knight, Holford
Ritson, J.


Daggar, George
Lang, Gordon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Dallas, George
Lathan, G.
Romerll, H. G.


Dalton, Hugh
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Rowson, Guy


Day, Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Devlin, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dickson, T.
Lawther. W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leach, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Dukes, C.
Lee. Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sandham, E.


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sawyer, G. F.


Ede, James Chuter
Lees, J.
Scott, James


Edge, Sir William
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lindley, Fred W.
Scurr, John


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sexton, James


Egan, W. H.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Eimley, Viscount
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Foot, Isaac
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lowth, Thomas
Shield, George William


Freeman, Peter
Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shillaker, J. F.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shinwell. E.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McElwee, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Atiglesea)
McEntee, V. L.
Simmons, C. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gill, T. H.
McKinlay, A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Glassey, A. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sinkinson, George


Gosling, Harry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Tinker, John Joseph
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Toole, Joseph
West, F. R.


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Tout, W. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Han. J.


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Sorensen, R.
Turner, B.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Spero, Or. G. E.
Vaughan, D. J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Stephen, Campbell
Walker, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson. R. J. Narrow)


Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wallhead, Richard C.
Winterton. G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Strauss, G. R.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Wise, E. F.


Sullivan, J.
Watkins, F. C.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sutton, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).
Wright, W. (Ruthergien)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah



Thurtle, Ernest
Wellock, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tillett, Ben
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Mond, Hon. Henry


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'I)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'I., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Atholl, Duchess of
Galbralth, J. F. W.
Muirhead, A. J.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Balniel, Lord
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'Id)


Beaumont, M, W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Berry, Sir George
Gower, Sir Robert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Grace, John
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Penny, Sir George


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Boyce, H. L.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bracken, B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Duiwich)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd'., Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Purbrick, R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsbotham, H.


Buchan, John
Hartington, Marquess of
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, John R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Butler, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Salmon, Major I.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S S.


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Iveagh, Countess of
Skelton, A. N.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Colfox, Major William Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smithers, Waldron


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cranbourne, Viscount
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Long, Major Eric
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lymington, Viscount
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macquisten, F. A.
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Train, J.


Dixey, A. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Eden, Captain Anthony
Meller, R. J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert




Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Warrender, Sir Victor
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Water-house, Captain Charles
Withers, Sir John James



Wells, Sydney R.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Womersley, W. J.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Captain Margesson.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday 16th May, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT AND PROTECTION) BILL.

Order for resuming To-morrow, adjourned Debate on Second Reading [29th November] read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House, in respect of the proposed New Clause (Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit) standing nr the name of the right hon. Member for Wallsend.
In moving this Motion standing in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), in the first place I would call to the notice of the House that the Minister had this suggestion put to her during the Debate, and she returned by no means an unqualified negative to it. It was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), and the right hon. Lady replied:
We have consulted and shall consult those who took a prominent part in the discussion on Thursday.
Then she said:
Those consultations are still proceeding. Until we get a decision as the result of those consultations I do not think I can make any promise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1929; col. 93, Vol. 233.]
On that, I withdrew the Motion which was then before the House to report Progress. I submit, therefore, in the first place, that the Government themselves at that time saw that this was a reasonable request to make, and the Minister thought it was a request as to which, although she could not agree to it there and then, she used a word which indicated a sympathetic consideration. Previous to that we had had, as the Committee well knows, some vivid and lively debate upon the question of Clause 4 dealing with disqualification from benefit under the unemployment insurance. Clause 4, as introduced by the Government, was, at any rate, considered in many parts of the Committee, and certainly amongst many of their own supporters, to be a Clause far below what they anticipated, and great pressure was brought to bear upon the Minister, as a result of which the Clause was withdrawn, and it was agreed by the Minister that it should be redrafted and brought up
in a new form. It seemed to us that the statement used by responsible Ministers during that Debate indicated that the Clause as redrafted would be nothing more or less than a new Clause such as to constitute a new Bill. We put that point of view to the Prime Minister, and to hon. and right hon. Members opposite, and the Prime Minister, in his characteristic fashion, stated in reply to a question by myself:
When he considers, he will also find that he is. … very exaggerated in his language when he says a redraft of Clause 4, so as to make it conform more to the original intention, is a new Bill.
Further on he said:
Clause 4, as redrafted, will simply carry out more precisely the intention of the original Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th December, 1929; cols. 38–40, Vol. 233.]
These were the statements of Ministers on Monday of this week, when it was clear that Ministers themselves had no idea whatever as to the effect of the changes which they were about to introduce into the House, because we had before us a description not from any party source, but, from an impartial source, the permanent officials of the Department, who will have to examine and carry out this scheme, we have an examination of the new Clause which it is proposed to ask this House to consider on Report without another opportunity of considering it in this House. I submit without any hesitation that it fulfils, and more than fulfils, the language which I and other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen used on this side as to the extent of the change being so great as to constitute in this respect, which is the kernel of the Bill, practically a new Bill. If it had not been so, it would not have satisfied hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. They are under no misapprehension as to whether or not this is a new Bill. They were pressing for a new Bill. They were pressing, not for a mere re-drafting of a Clause, but for alterations of a wide and sweeping character.
It would be out of order for me to discuss those changes now, but that they are of a wide and sweeping character the statements of the Ministry officials and the Government Actuary are themselves sufficient to show. Let me call the attention of the House to this White Paper, which has only been circulated this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Last night!"]
Last night a few typewritten copies, after 10 o'clock, were placed in the Vote Office and were available for Members, but the Clause itself was only in print that morning, the White Paper was only available in typescript last night, and the two together are only available in print today; and to-day the Prime Minister asks the House of Commons to pass this wide and far-reaching change, to part with it once and for all, without any consideration, even without the moderate amount of review that is possible during the Committee stage in this House. Not merely are hon. Members limited but the Minister herself is limited on each of these occasions. They can only make one statement on each Motion, and if it is desired to elucidate a point, the Minister can only speak again by leave of the House. These rules of procedure, which are laid down specifically to limit debate on account of the previous consideration of proposals during the Committee stage, will be applied, and will have to be applied, by the Chair in all their stringency, to limit debate on proposals which have not been in print until this morning.
The Government Actuary begins by recapitulating the effect of these proposals and stating that they make essential and wide differences from the Clause as introduced in the Bill. The Actuary goes on to state:
It is manifestly difficult to make any definite forecast of the financial effect of these changes.
He goes on to compare the new Clause with the old Clause, showing that the old Clause affected 65,000 persons and that the new Clause affects another 90,000 persons, which more than doubles the sweep of the original Bill. The old Clause made a charge of £3,250,000 per annum on public funds; the new Clause places an additional burden of from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 upon public funds. It more than doubles the number of persons who come under it, it more than doubles the sum of money which is levied to pay for these benefits, and this is the Clause which we are asked to con-side for the first time under the very stringent conditions of the Report stage in this House.
But this is not the whole of the Clause. It goes further and the Government Actuary says, in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the White Paper:
8. These figures relate to insured persons whose unemployment books are lodged at the Employment Exchanges. The possibility should, however, not be overlooked that the new provision may have the effect of bringing certain other persons into benefit, for example, married women who have done little or no work since marriage and seasonal workers during the 'off-season.'
9. These two classes of cases will serve as illustrations of what in the aggregate may amount to a considerable group of new claimants. … There are, however, no data enabling any estimate to he made of the additional cost arising under this head.
It is a technical point, and one which might be worthy of discussion in this House, as to whether by doing so the Government do not introduce a fresh charge, but it is possible that that may be held to be covered by the very wide terms of the Financial Resolution on which the Bill is based. Let me ask the House to consider that the Government officials are so far dealing with new and unexplored territory that in their summation of the burden which will be laid on the Exchequer, a burden amounting to £26,500,000, on account of the charges under the new proposals in this and previous schemes of the present Government, they specifically exclude any charge that may arise in the cases referred to in paragraph 8 of the White Paper.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): £26,500,000?

Major ELLIOT: I should say the total charges which will be laid upon the Exchequer, as increased by the burdens which have been laid upon it as part of the schemes of the Government in the present year. The total charge as increased is £26,500,000, and in lumping all those figures together the Government officials are still unable to make any estimate whatever as to the effect of the charges arising under the Sub-sections—

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there would be an increased Exchequer charge of £24,500,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did. That £24,500,000 includes the £12,000,000 provided for before this Government came into office.

Major ELLIOT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer must allow me, if I have made a slip, as one may do in dealing with
figures, to restate the matter, and I have restated the matter as given in the terms of the White Paper which is before us, where the statement occurs:
This will make a total Exchequer charge in 1930–31 of £26,500,000.
Having made a slip previously, I stated that that was the sum, as increased by the burdens which are being laid upon the Government as a result of the schemes of the present year. I was using that as an illustration of the fact that the Government, having taken all these charges into account, are still totally unable to make any statement whatever as to the financial effect of the two new groups, which, by the way, are only given as illustrations and which, as everybody knows, include, certainly in the case of married women, groups as to which it is very difficult to make any safe estimate whatever. I submit that these groups as to which the officials are unable to make any estimate are the groups, if any, where the collective common sense of the House might reasonably give us some guidance. The experts have failed. They are unable to give us any guidance, and we suggest that it is the collective sense of the House of Commons, exercised not under the stringent rules of the Report stage, but under the commonsense rules of the Committee stage, that might be of value, not merely to us, but to the Government as a whole.
There is a further point in connection with this. As I have said, the sums which are being asked for are large sums. They are by no means small sums. The number of persons affected is large; it is double the size which the Bill originally dealt with, and the funds from which this is being drawn are also of importance. These are not merely Exchequer funds, these are trust funds, which we are being asked to deal with; and for the first time, as far as I know, Ministers are coming down to this House in respect of a trust fund and deliberately asking the House to vote this trust fund into a deficit. Let me read the statement of the Government Actuary on the subject. He says:
In view of the estimate in paragraph 8 of my Report of 14th November, on the proposals of the Bill (Cmd. 3437) that in the year 1930–31 the income and expenditure of the fund will balance, under the new conditions, if the number of persons on the live register averages about 1,200,000
throughout the year, I should point out that, on this volume of unemployment, the estimated effect of the new Amendments (after allowing for the increase in the charge on the Exchequer) is to make such an addition to expenditure as would involve an increase in the debt of the fund during the year by upwards of £2,000,000.
It is a trust fund, of which this House is trustee, of which the Government more particularly is a trustee, and we are asked to pass in a morning, after a morning's consideration of the financial proposals, a Clause which the Government Actuary assures us will have the effect of running the fund further into debt to the extent of £2,000,000.
The Prime Minister and others have made demands upon us to consider ourselves as a Council of State. What Council of State, what deliberative body, can function under these conditions? As the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour will admit, we have discussed this Bill throughout with the desire to concentrate our arguments upon points of substance. We have dealt with it under a voluntary limitation which has been stringently observed by those on this side of the House, even when they thought an overlapping of their time might reasonably be considered to have taken place, and the right hon. Lady will agree to that. Under those conditions, we have discussed this Bill, and when we brought up the fact that a new Clause was being introduced and that it might reasonably be taken in Committee instead of for the first time on Report, the right hon. Lady dismissed it in a word by saying that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, which was myself, seemed to be much ado about nothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I observe that apparently that view is still held by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. The supplementary White Paper shows that the Bill is now more than doubled in the number of persons to whom it refers and in the charges which are laid, and showing that it involves, not a balance of the fund, as the Minister has said, but a deficit in the fund, and the answer of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to that is that it is much ado about nothing.
This fund, of which we are trustees, takes the contributions not merely of the Exchequer, but of millions of very poor persons, and for these contributions the Government has a responsibility. The Government is asking the House to
abrogate its responsibility with regard to this fund and to vote it into deficit, without making any arrangements whatever by what that deficit can be met. These are not conditions under which free debate can take place, and we ask, nay we demand, from the Government the right of free discussion here in the House of Commons. There is no reason whatever, save the desire of hon. Members opposite to get away for their holidays—[Interruption]. The programme as laid down does not allow for consideration of Lords' Amendments, and it is therefore clear that this Measure is not going to complete all its stages and become law before Christmas. There is, therefore, no good reason why the House should be asked to part with it now. The programme of minor business, business of minor and, in some cases, negligible importance, which the Prime Minister has read out for the week after this House resumes might as well be changed so as to give another half day for a question of this importance.
Three times has the House tried to solve this question of genuinely seeking work, and three times has the House failed to solve it. It has failed, as hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway opposite pointed out on one occasion, the last occasion on which there was a Labour Government., because they were asked to deal with it in a hurry and because the Government assumed that it would be all right and that there was no necessity to go further into a question of this importance; and they regretted it thereafter. The House is being asked in the circumstances I have described to part with a Clause of first-rate importance which affects the lives of millions of poor people, not merely the poor people who are beneficiaries but the 10 million people who pay contributions. We are being asked to pass this Clause in a single day under the stringent rules of the Report stage. We on this side say that, in such conditions, it is impossible for the Government to contend that they are really asking the House of Commons to bend its mind to the problem.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so formally in order to ask your ruling, Sir, on a point of Order. Is it not clear that the effect of this Clause will be to impose an additional charge
on the public revenue, and, that being so, is it not the case that it is not competent for this House to consider the Clause by way of re-committal at all. If it does impose a charge on the public revenue, it is surely necessary that it should go through the ordinary procedure—first a recommendation from the Crown, and then consideration in Committee and on Report.

Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to that point of Order, it is quite true that, if this new Clause did impose an entirely fresh charge on the revenue, it would be necessary to have a Money Resolution for that purpose, but I have come to the conclusion that it does not impose an entirely new charge upon the Exchequer. Therefore a Money Resolution is not necessary. That certainly would be necessary if it were the case that an entirely new charge was being imposed, and such a case would not be covered by the mere re-committal of the Clause.

Sir H. O'NEILL: With great respect, may I carry this point one step further? Is it not the case that under Standing Order 67 no charge upon the public revenue can be considered except in Committee of the Whole House, and does not that pre-suppose that charges, even though they may be sanctioned by a Financial Resolution, which are, in fact, over and above charges actually imposed when the House was in Committee, ought to be treated as being, in effect, new charges and that the proper financial procedure should be followed in regard to them?

Captain BOURNE: May I suggest, Sir, that this matter is covered by a Ruling of your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Whitley, on the Electricity Bill in, 1926, when he distinctly laid down:
You cannot propose anything which involves an extra charge on the Exchequer or the rates on the Report stage of a Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1926; col. 1044, Vol. 199.]
I am not sure whether or not this Clause is covered by the Financial Resolution, but the White Paper issued by the Government states that the increased charge which will be imposed on the Exchequer, in the year 1930–31, will be about £2,000,000, and I respectfully submit that the common-sense interpretation of Mr. Speaker Whitley's words is that no Amendment or new Clause which, in fact,
imposes any additional cost on the Exchequer, can be proposed in this House with you, Sir, in the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am very well aware of the Ruling of my predecessor, and it is a Ruling which has been given by many of my predecessors. It is a well-known Rule in this House that no new charge can be imposed, either on the Exchequer or the rates, on the Report stage of a Bill. I maintain that in this particular instance that does not occur. The charge proposed is not a new charge, but is an increase of the charge already provided for in Clause 12 of the Bill.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I rise to remind the House of what took place during the Debate on Thursday last, in order that we may be enabled to get on with our ordinary business. The discussion in Committee on that occasion showed clearly that there was general agreement with regard to Sub-section (1) of Clause 4 of the Bill as it was then re-drafted. When we came to Sub-sections (2) and (3), after a very long and sustained Debate, I said:
When I spoke earlier in the evening I said that I wanted to get the combined wisdom of the House in connection with this matter, and it is perfectly clear from the Debate that has taken place, that the combined wisdom of the Committee is that Subsections (2) and (3) should be withdrawn. I accept the view that has been expressed by the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2705, Vol. 232.]
Later, I was greatly helped by the Leader of the Opposition in dealing with the matter. He pointed out that we had reached a certain point in our discussions, and I accepted his very helpful suggestion. He said:
I do believe that the wisest course would be to negative the Clause and for the Government to give an undertaking to put down a new Clause complete, when it can be taken as the first Government Clause on the Report stage. We shall have plenty of time to debate it then."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2719, Vol. 232.]
I submit that the position is clear and that it was the intention of the Committee that this Clause should be put down and taken as the first business on the Report stage. Therefore I must resist the Motion.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I rise to support the Motion and to ask
the Leader of the House to give it his consideration. I think every Member of the House will realise that I am in a somewhat special position and I hope they also realise that, being in a special position, I am not intervening on this occasion in any party spirit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I put it to hon. Members opposite who were in the last Parliament that for four and a half years I carried out the duties of what is, by common admission, probably the most difficult of all Ministerial offices—the office which the right hon. Lady fills to-day. It is indeed difficult and disagreeable, but all through that time, according to my lights, whether I was right or wrong, I always thought of the proper administration of the system as my first motive. I am not saying a single word beyond the truth when I say that I cared more for the proper and, as far as possible, the sympathetic administration of the system, than I did for any party or political advantage. I ask the Leader of the House to consider, from that point of view, what he is asking the House to do this afternoon.
This is, without question, the most important Clause in the Bill. When I said to the right hon. Gentleman before that it was the kernel of the Bill he told me afterwards that I had exaggerated. I may have many faults as a politician, but exaggeration is not one of them, and perhaps if I could exaggerate rather more, I might be a more successful politician. The Minister knows quite well and has herself said that it is the most important Clause in the Bill and that was also the opinion of the Attorney-General. It is really the kernel of the Bill because, on this Clause together with the one which follows it, the whole administration of the system depends. That, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will realise if he asks either the Minister of Labour or any of her permanent advisers or any person throughout the country who has had an intimate connection with the administration of these Acts. It affects the pivot on which the whole administration of the system rests, and, whatever may be our judgment with regard to its results, this surely is a Clause which ought to go through the ordinary Committee stage. That stage is not a trivial thing. What does the Committee stage really mean
in regard to a Clause like this, as distinct from the Report stage? The right hon. Lady says that it means that we can gather the wisdom of the House. What it does mean is that a Clause can be, as it were, licked into shape in Committee. The Committee stage has two advantages which do not apply on the Report stage. There is informal discussion by which one can get at particular points and minor matters. It has the further advantage that if it is found that intricate questions are involved—which the White Paper shows clearly is the case here—there is still the Report stage on which considered, well-drafted and suitable Amendments can be brought up.
Observe what happened in the Committee stage on the original Clause 4 of the Bill. There was ample time for its preparation both as regards substance and wording, but what happened in Committee? Sub-section (1) was dealt with on the understanding that just because there was this further stage, reasoned and well-drafted Amendment to Sub-section (1) might be brought up on Report. When it came to Sub-sections (2) and (3) they were withdrawn altogether and with them the rest of the Clause—simply simply because there was the opportunity of bringing them forward again at a later stage. If that Clause had not been discussed in Committee the House would have been in a hopeless position, because there would have been no subsequent stage at which to deal with the matter. The present Clause goes infinitely further than the other Clause. It is not a question merely of re-drafting. If it were it might have been suitable to bring it forward on the Report stage, but we have a completely new Clause, and I suggest to the Leader of the House to ask the Minister or her advisers if it does not completely alter the whole administration from top to bottom. It has been brought forward obviously in great haste and therefore is more liable to have imperfections than the previous Clause.
I put down a Private Notice Question to the Minister asking her to let us have a White Paper containing all the necessary information so that we might have ample time to consider it. I have not been idle in trying to get the White Paper. I tried to get it throughout yesterday as well as the day before, but I could not get it until 10 o'clock last
night. I was doing work from a quarter past nine until 10, and when I got it, it was too late to consider it, and to put down Amendments on the Order Paper for to-day.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the issues raised. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) called attention to the enormous amount of expenditure. The new expenditure is great, but the new expenditure, from the point of view from which I am looking at it, is the least aspect of the whole matter. It introduces new principles. It is clear from paragraphs 8 and 9 of the White Paper that it introduces perfectly new principles into the whole system of unemployment insurance, and, in a technical matter of this kind, it is impossible to get it considered on Report stage.
I am appealing to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of good, decent administration—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may not realise that I am really thinking about the pivot of the whole system of administration. Surely, whatever position is ultimately reached in this House, Members opposite, as well as Members here and below the Gangway, must agree that it ought to be reached after proper consideration and proper care. No one would want a great system like unemployment insurance to be—

Mr. TOWNEND: On a point of Order. Is not the right hon. Gentleman out of order, owing to the fact that only one speech on either side is usual on a Motion to recommit?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have considered that point. Under Standing Order No. 40A, that is the procedure laid down. But I have studied the Ruling which was given by my predecessor on a rather similar Motion to this. In that case, he said that, not only the letter of the Standing Order, but the intention when it was drawn up, must be taken into consideration. Clearly, in a case of this kind, the intention is that questions of this importance and variety should nor be dealt with in that way by only two speakers.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not my wish to take up the time of the House. My wish is to put to the Prime Minister that in this matter he has the whole of
the pivot of the great system of administration, and that it ought not to be settled out of hand, so to speak, on the Report stage of the Bill. It is not right. There ought to be the chance of considering it and going through it. I beg of him to realise that it is a matter of first-class principle. There are some situations in the life of the country, where a public need is so great, that anybody will understand at once that it transcends ordinary party considerations. There are other situations, where the need is just as real, though it is not so great, and I put it to the Prime Minister that this is one on which, if anyone wishes to show the purity of their wish and to try to consult the public welfare, he will not allow a great administration and the principles of it to be settled in this way in a single afternoon.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I have been looking at the provisions of Standing Order No. 40A, and I do not propose to turn this exchange of views into a Debate. The only question with which I wish to concern myself is this: Are we to-day acting unfairly? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I put the question to myself: Are we acting unfairly in asking the House to proceed with the Report stage of this Bill without recommitting it in respect of the old deleted Clause 4 as now redrafted? I put that point to myself immediately after I heard what had happened when Clause 4 was withdrawn. Those of us who have been in this House for some time know perfectly well that every now and again both sides come to a certain bargain. The House as a whole gets into a difficult situation, and the suggestion is made, sometimes from the Government side, and sometimes from the Opposition side, that the way to get out of the difficulty might be so and so. Then both sides agree that that is satisfactory, and it is done. What are the right hon. Gentlemen doing to-day? They are trying to re-open a bargain—[Interruption.] I can only say what conclusion I have come to after a very careful study of the OFFICIAL REPORT. This is the position: We were debating Clause 4, and there was confusion, certainly as much on that side as upon ours. The Leader of the Opposition intervened, and proposed an arrangement. I will read his words:
I am not quite sure whether the Minister of Labour realises what a mess we have got into. I think that far the best and wisest thing to do, if I may venture to make a suggestion, which is made with a desire to help, is to negative the whole of this Clause, and put down a new Clause to come first on Report. Then we shall have the whole Clause before us, we can see what the whole Clause is, and we shall be able to debate it and make such Amendments as the House may consider right at that time.
I have been looking at the Order Paper to-day, and I find that the right hon. Gentleman has certainly exercised his right, and is responsible, at any rate, for two Amendments. I will leave out a sentence interjected here. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition proceeded—
After the Debate which we have had, and I have listened to a good deal of it, I do believe that the wisest course would be to negative the Clause and for the Government to give an undertaking to put down a new Clause complete when it can be taken as the first Government Clause on the Report stage. We shall have plenty of time to debate it then. We could adjourn further debate now, and start with Clause 5 on Monday.
Is there any feeling in the minds of the Opposition—I was not present, but I am reading the OFFICIAL REPORT—that that very helpful statement, which was made by the Leader of the Opposition, was regarded by us, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and by me as something casual? If there be any doubt in their minds, may I read my right hon. Friend's reply:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman fur what is a very valuable and practical suggestion, and I accept it.
Apparently it was not very clear to supporters below the Gangway, and the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) said:
On a point of Order. Has the right lion. Lad v accepted the suggestion?" [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; cols. 2720, Vol. 232.]
Yes, she had. We have been lectured about fair play, and so on. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, on that record, are we doing anything wrong?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can speak again only by leave of the House, but I have been directly asked a question. I say, most certainly. That was a suggestion made by my right hon. Friend to try to help the House out of a diffi-
culty, but the Clause as brought in is so different from a normal redrafting that we have not had sufficient time to consider it.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly prepared to leave it there. If hon. Members opposite will read the Debate preceding the extracts which I have read, they will find that it was exactly such a Clause in general features as was in the minds of those who objected to the Clause as originally drafted, and I hope that the House will support it in the Division when explanations have been made sufficiently fully. The understanding which made my right hon. Friend withdraw Clause 4, including Sub-section (1) which had gone through Committee, was that all that would be required of us was to produce a Clause which would be taken, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman's own Leader, "as the first Government Clause on the Report stage." Had that not been my understanding of it, and had not that been the understanding of the whole House, the business arranged might have been somewhat different. We are standing by the pledge which we gave.

Earl WINTERTON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: A point of Order was put to me a few minutes ago with regard to Standing Order No. 40A. I said that latitude could be given under that Order, but I did not mean that we should have a prolonged Debate.

5.0 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish in any way to transgress your ruling, Sir, or to raise a long point of Order upon it, but may I point out that the right hon. Gentleman has made what we on this side of the House consider rather a serious charge? He used the actual words, because I put them down at the time, that an arrangement had been proposed, and that there had been a breach of the bargain. I would like to ask you whether, in those circumstances, and as I do not propose to keep the House more than five minutes, it would not be in accordance with the ordinary custom and procedure of the House for someone from this Bench to be allowed to answer the rather serious charge which the right hon. Gentleman has made? I am entirely in your hands and in the hands of the House, but I think what I have suggested
would be according to custom, speaking as an old Member.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. If the Noble Earl, in the course of his reply, makes a charge against someone on this side of the House, as he will be almost sure to do if he acts according to form, will it then be in order for us to reply from this side of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That at once shows the danger of departing from the strict letter of the Standing Order.

Earl WINTERTON: I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is an entirely fair one, and I will endeavour to attack no one on the other side of the House. [Interruption.] It may be very hard for me, but I will try to create a precedent for myself. The Prime Minister has said that there has been a breach of the bargain in this matter, and I think it is necessary to recall to the attention of the House what really occurred on that occasion. Admittedly, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there was confusion in the Committee, but in conformity with the undertaking which I have just given, I will not say from what that confusion arose. We on this side have very definite views as to who caused the confusion; but let it remain at that. The point is, there was confusion in the Committee. Nobody denies it. The Prime Minister was not in the House, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was, and in view of the confusion which had arisen and which was inimical alike to the interests of the Bill and to the interests of the Committee in coming to a decision, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that it would be better to defer further consideration of this particular Clause to a more convenient season. There is no difference of opinion about that. [Interruption.] To withdraw the Clause, certainly, and to defer consideration of what would be Clause 4 until a later date. [HON. MEMBERS: "On Report stage."] The point of difference does not arise upon that, because it is all in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. Friend had no conception, and there was nothing in the discussion before the Committee, to show that this Clause was going to differ fundamentally from the Clause which was then before the Committee. [Interruption.] I can assure the Prime Minister that I have read the discussion.

The PRIME MINISTER: And I have read it.

Earl WINTERTON: This is a fundamentally different Clause from that which was withdrawn on that occasion. In those circumstances, for the Prime Minister to charge us on this side of the House with having broken a bargain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."]—is, I must confess, going a little too far. Once again we ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter. Had the right hon. Gentleman been present in the Committee—I know that it is not possible for him to be here always—he would have seen that the temper and the psychologyof the House in discussing the Bill has been friendly.

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated assent.

Earl WINTERTON: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman assents to that view. Nothing could be more calculated to cause the general atmosphere of the

House to be less friendly on the remaining stages of the Bill than for the Opposition to feel, as they do feel, that they have not been fairly treated. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the feeling on this side. We believe it is perfectly possible to give the time necessary for the further consideration of this Clause, and once again we protest as strongly as we can, at our treatment by the Government; against the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have not only taken this course of action but have added insult to injury by telling us that it is we who have broken the bargain.

Question put,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House, in respect of the proposed New Clause (Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit) standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Wallsend.

The House divided: Ayes, 192 Noes, 287.

Division No. 91.]
AYES.
[5.6 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cranbourne, Viscount
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., w.)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Iveagh, Countess of


Astor, Viscountess
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Dalkeith, Earl of
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Balniel, Lord
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dixey, A. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Beaumont, M. W.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Berry, Sir George
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Eric


Boyce, H. L.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lymington, Viscount


Bracken, B.
Ferguson, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fielden, E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fison, F. G. Clavering
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Meller, R. J.


Butler, R. A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grace, John
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mond, Hon. Henry


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Muirhead, A. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Christie, J. A.
Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Haslam, Henry C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Colman, N. C. D.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Colvllie, Major D. J.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & wh'by)
Penny, Sir George


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Power, Sir John Cecil
Skelton, A. N.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Purbrick, R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Ramsbotham, H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smithers, Waldron
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Remer, John R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wells, Sydney R.


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ross, Major Ronald D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Withers, Sir John James


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Salmon, Major I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Tinne, J. A.



Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Savery, S. S.
Train, J.
Sir Victor Warrender and Captain




Sir George Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edge, Sir William
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edmunds, J. E.
Kennedy, Thomas


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kinley, J.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kirkwood, D.


Alpass, J. H.
Egan, W. H.
Knight, Holford


Angell, Norman
Eimley, Viscount
Lang, Gordon


Arnott, John
Foot, Isaac
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Attlee, Clement Richard
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lathan, G.


Ayles, Walter
Freeman, Peter
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lawrence, Susan


Barnes, Alfred John
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Barr, James
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawson, John James


Batey, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bellamy, Albert
Gill, T. H.
Leach, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Glassey, A. E.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gosling, Harry
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gossling, A. G.
Lees, J.


Benson, G.
Gould, F.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lindley, Fred W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Blindell, James
Granville, E.
Longbottom, A. W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gray, Milner
Longden, F.


Bowen, J. w.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, Thomas


Broad, Francis Alfred
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bromfield, William
Groves, Thomas E.
McElwee, A.


Bromley, J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, V. L.


Brooke, W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mackinder, W.


Brothers, M.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
McKinlay, A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
MacLaren, Andrew


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Harbison, T. J.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Buchanan, G.
Hardle, George D.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Burgess, F. G.
Harris, Percy A.
McShane, John James


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Hastings, Dr. Somervllle
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Caine, Derwent Hall.
Hayday, Arthur
Mansfield, W.


Cameron, A. G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marcus, M.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Markham, S. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, SW.)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marley, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George


Church, Major A. G.
Herriotts, J.
Matters, L. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maxton, James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Messer, Fred


Compton, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.
Middleton, G.


Cove, William G.
Hollins, A.
Millar, J. D.


Cowan, D. M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Mills, J. E.


Daggar, George
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, J.


Dallas, George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Montague, Frederick


Dalton, Hugh
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Isaacs, George
Morley, Ralph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Devlin, Joseph
Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Dickson, T.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Mort, D. L.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Moses, J. J. H.


Dukes, C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Duncan, Charles
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muff, G.


Ede, James Chuter
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Muggeridge, H. T.




Murnin, Hugh
Samuel, Rt. Hon, Sir H. (Darwen)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Nathan, Major H. L.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Thomas, Rt. Hon, J. H. (Derby)


Newman, Sir B. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sanders, W. S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sandham, E.
Tillett, Ben


Oldfield, J. R.
Sawyer, G. F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Scott, James
Toole, Joseph


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Scrymgeour, E.
Tout, W. J.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Scurr, John
Townend, A. E.


Owen. H. F. (Hereford)
Sexton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Palin, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Turner, B.


Palmer, E. T.
Sherwood, G. H.
Vaughan, D. J.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shield, George William
Viant, S. P.


Perry, S. F.
Shillaker, J. F.
Walker, J.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Shinwell, E.
Wallace, H. W.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Simmons, C. J.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Watkins, F. C.


Pole, Major D. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Ponsonby, Arthur
Sinclair, sir A. (Caithness)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Potts, John S.
Sinkinson, George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Price, M. P.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wellock, Wilfred


Pybus, Percy John
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
West, F. R.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wheatley. Rt. Hon. J.


Richards, R.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Ritson, J.
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Romeril, H. G.
Stephen, Campbell
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Rowson, Guy
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Sullivan, J.



Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

Bill, as amended, considered.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit.)

(1) If on a claim for benefit it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant, after a situation in any employment which is suitable in his case has been notified to him by an Employment Exchange or other recognised agency, or by or Oh behalf of an employer as vacant or about to become vacant, has without good cause refused or failed to apply for such situation, or refused to accept such situation when offered to him, or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that a claimant has without good cause refused or failed to carry out any written directions given to him by an officer of an Employment Exchange with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment (being directions which were reasonable having regard both to the circumstances of the claimant and to the means of obtaining that employment usually adopted in the district in which the claimant resides) he shall be disqualified for receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be.

(2) For the purposes of this Section employment shall not be deemed to be suitable employment in relation to any claimant if it is either—

(a) employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or
(b) employment in his usual occupation in the district where he was last ordinarily
724
employed at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those which he might reasonably have expected to, obtain, having regard to those which he habitually obtained in his usual occupation in that district or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed; or
(c) employment in his usual occupation in any other district at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those generally observed in that district, by agreement between associations of employers and of employés, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in that district by good employers.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In moving the Second Reading of the Clause which stands in the name of the Minister of Labour, I wish to say that she has thought it would he more convenient to the House if I endeavoured at the outset to explain exactly what this new Clause does, in order that she may reserve herself for a later stage of the Debate, when she will be able to reply to the criticisms of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The House well aware of the situation which arose on Thursday last. Since then the Government have had time to reconsider this
question, and we have had co-operation and assistance from members in all quarters of the House. On Thursday last the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) suggested that we should attempt to obtain the collective sense of the House on this question, and I think it will be found that this new Clause represents what I believe to be the collective sense and the views of the Members of the House of Commons as expressed on Thursday last.

Major ELLIOT: Surely it is not suggested that consultations took place with those on this side of the House, because we were not consulted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not suggest that, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to develop my argument. I think it will be generally agreed that on Thursday last, on all sides of the House, there was really no difference in principle on this subject. I believe that from all sides of the House the view was expressed that the benefits granted under this Bill should go to relieve only those unemployed who do the best they can to get work. The scheme should be undoubtedly one to help those who help themselves.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to repeat what he said? As I took it down, he suggested that the relief should go to any man who could show that he was doing the best he could to obtain work.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. If we could have some divine guidance, some heavenly wisdom which would enable us to separate the sheep from the goats, and separate the loafer from the great mass of the unemployed, I think every Member of the House would agree that we should disqualify those who are not endeavouring to help themselves, and that they should he marked with some outward and visible sign showing that they could not be included in the scheme. Seeing that we have not got that heavenly wisdom, the real difficulty is to know what is the best test to devise for this purpose. How are you going to separate these two classes amongst the unemployed? What test will you adopt to separate those who are work-shy, leaving the benefits to those who are really trying to get work, and at the same time
depriving of benefit those who are not trying to get work. That is the whole problem. Anyone who can invent a foolproof formula which will achieve that object will have done much to establish a sound administration of this scheme in the interests of all sections of the unemployed.
It seems to me that it is extremely difficult to devise a form of words which cannot be used wrongly by the administration. We have been trying to find a form of words which will provide a perfectly satisfactory test. In the last Debate we had instances from all sides of the House that the simple test which is in existence to-day has broken down. I remember the speech of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), who gave chapter and verse for everything he said. He gave us a clear illustration in the case of a married man who had been subjected to every possible test in order to get work, and in the end had been deprived of benefit on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking work. It very often happens that the work-shy, and those not genuinely seeking work, are plausible gentlemen with rather glib tongues who manage to escape through the meshes and are not deprived of benefit, whereas the honest worker is very often the fellow who fails to get through those meshes. In the result we are faced with a situation in which the administration carried on with the best intentions and based upon the not genuinely seeking work Clause must continue in the future to lead to very great injustice, as it has done in the past.
It was an exceedingly difficult task to provide a satisfactory formula, but it was quite clear on Thursday last that the House was not satisfied with the formula which we had devised. I do not make the smallest apology for having had the wisdom, the good sense, and the courage to give effect to my second thoughts. If we are not to be influenced by what is said in the course of the Debate, then debate becomes a mere formality. If you invite the collective wisdom of the House to concentrate on this difficult problem, then you can find a satisfactory solution only by taking advantage of the collective wisdom of the House and the co-operation of all sections in the country. As soon as we found what was the collective wisdom of the House, we did not hesitate to act upon it. We thought that the test we
devised in the first instance was a satisfactory one, but the House desired to have something better. Since then I have done my best to think out this problem, and I came to certain conclusions which I have tried to embody in the new Clause which we are now discussing. I gave a promise that I would take an opportunity of consulting with hon. Members who had taken part in the Debate.

Major ELLIOT: Who had taken a prominent part in the Debate.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) did not take any part in the Debate.

Major ELLIOT: No, the argument of the Prime Minister was that the most prominent part had been taken by the Leader of the Opposition.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I know that the Leader of the Opposition made a suggestion in order to get us out of our difficulties, but that has nothing to do with the point I am discussing. I consulted my hon. Friends behind me and hon. Members below the Gangway, and they gave me the benefit of their advice, although the responsibility for this Clause is not their responsibility but mine. At the same time, I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the kindly help which they gave me, and we did the best we could to solve a very difficult problem. I do not propose to deal with the very important question of finance, which I think will be better left for the Minister to deal with in the light of the questions which may be raised, but I thought that at this stage it might be convenient if I were to discuss the Clause and explain what I understand it to mean, so that in the course of the Debate hon. Members opposite will know at least what we are intending to do, and I think I have succeeded in arriving at a form of words which will carry out our intention.
The House will observe that the proposed new Clause falls into two parts, Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2). With regard to Sub-section (2), I think I need merely say that it is taken from Sub-section (5) of the old Clause 4, and that, although it was contained in the old Clause 4, and is again repeated here, it is in fact actually borrowed from the
existing law. It is, therefore, merely repeating what is already the law of this country. We thought it convenient to repeat it here, because there has been so much amendment of one Act by another Act that it is very difficult, without a prolonged survey, to see exactly where we stand. I desire to make it clear that it involves no alteration in the existing law, but is a mere statement of what the existing law is.
With regard to Sub-section (1), hon. Members opposite will observe that, in line 6, there occur the words "or if." The Sub-section, therefore, falls quite naturally into two parts, the first part going down to these words, and the second part starting from the words "or if." I will, if I may, say something about the first part of Sub-section (1). The broad principle of this Sub-section is to state in appropriate language what is sometimes known as the Hayday formula—the principle of the offer of a job. The word "offer" is hardly an appropriate word, in that the job is not offered by the Employment Exchange, but is notified by the Employment Exchange. Consequently, we have used a phrase which expresses that, and we have also included in the persons who may notify:
an Employment Exchange or other recognised agency, or by or on behalf of an employer.
The words, however, with regard to which there appears to be some misapprehension, are the words in the second line:
suitable in his case.
It appears from a leading article in the "Times" to-day that the effect of the Bill has been in a certain sense misunderstood, and I therefore desire to make it quite plain that a job may be suitable notwithstanding the fact that it is outside the usual occupation of the claimant. It may also be suitable even although the employment is outside the district in which the claimant lives. If hon. Members will turn to page 16 of the Bill, they will find it stated in the last words on that page that Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, is amended, and the Amendment, as shown in the Last three lines of the right-hand column, consists in the insertion of the words:
and to the disqualifications for the receipt of benefit respectively.
Hon. Members will, I think, be willing to take it from me that although there is a somewhat complicated chain of reasoning, there is no doubt that the effect of so amending the Act of 1927 is to make Section 5 of that Act applicable to the proposed new Clause which we are now discussing, with regard to the point that employment may be suitable employment even though it is not employment in the usual occupation of the claimant.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but at the same time this is the Report stage, and he cannot be asked to speak again. I should like, therefore, to ask him now whether that satisfies the question of a different district as well, or is he going to deal with that question?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: At the moment I am dealing with occupation, my reason being that obviously in certain quarters this morning there was a misapprehension as to the effect of the Bill. Now I come to the question of the district. The right hon. Gentleman will observe that in paragraph (c) of Subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause it is expressly provided that:
For the purposes of this Section employment shall not be deemed to be suitable employment in relation to any claimant if it is either—
(c) employment in his usual occupation in any other district at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable"—
and so on. Therefore, it is plain that, even although the employment is in another district, yet, if the rate of wages is not lower, or the conditions are not less favourable, the fact that it is in another district does not prevent it from being suitable employment within the meaning of the Clause.
There is one other observation that I desire to make on this first part of the Clause. I have made it clear that it may be a different occupation, and that it may be in a different district, but difficult questions often arise as to whether employment is in fact suitable; and a later Amendment on the paper provides that that question shall in future be decided by a court of referees, and that an insurance official shall not have the power off his own bat to suspend the benefit of a man or woman because he or she has refused suitable employment. That question must be determined by a
court of referees, and, if I may say so, I think there are very few matters which can give rise to nicer and more difficult questions than the question whether or not an occupation is for any particular person suitable or not. Therefore we feel that the machinery of the court of referees ought to apply to that question as well. So far, I think it is plain that, although we have textually amended our previous Sub-section (1) of the old Clause 4, it really amounts to little more than a difference in words.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was good enough to suggest a form of words, and it will be observed that I have in substance accepted the form of words which he suggested, in order to carry out the intention which was common to everyone in regard to Sub-section (1), namely, to give effect to the Hayday formula. Then we had to consider whether or not we should stop there. We were pressed in Committee not to go further, and not to make any other ground of disqualification than the offer of a job. For my part, I thought then, and I think now, that it would not have done to stop there, and I will give, the House one reason why. Take the case of a shipyard repairer, whose chance of getting a job very often depends upon his going to a particular stand in a particular place at the docks at a particular time, when people wanting men come along and take from that stand so many men. It is obvious that in work of that sort there never could be a notification of a job in the ordinary sense, and indeed, if a man were minded to take the simple pre caution of never going near the stand or never entering the docks, he never could get work. Therefore, had we stopped where I have just stopped, he could say, "You cannot deprive me of benefit, because you never notified me of a vacancy," and he never could have been notified of a vacancy, because his chance of a vacancy depends upon his going to a particular place. For that reason it seemed to me obvious that we must go further.
There is also a second reason. I was very anxious that the Clause should not stop at the point at which we seemed to indicate that our view was that the man need do nothing to help himself. We ought not, if we can possibly help it, to let the mere difficulty of finding a suitable
formula prevent our indicating the exact contrary, namely, that we assume that the man is going to help himself to the best of his ability. Consequently it became necessary, if we were to go on, to see what further precautions we should take. This will be obvious to anybody who has studied the last Debate and was able to gauge the opinion of the House. Why did the test of "not genuinely seeking work" break down? What was wrong with the test? It was that it was a subjective test. It was a question which perhaps a metaphysician, or a psycho-analyst, or some gentleman of that sort, might, given unlimited time, have been able to determine, but it was quite impossible to determine the subjective state of a man's mind in the rough-and-tumble, if they will forgive my saying so, of the proceedings of a court of referees, where the work has to be got through at a great rate.
The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove criticised with his usual severity, though with his usual good humour, the test which we proposed in Clause 4. He said, "Your test is a test of diligence, and diligence is a difficult thing to prove. You have not anything sufficiently precise in diligence." Brooding over the words of the hon. and gallant Member, I came to the conclusion that at least I had got to devise some test, if test there was going to be, which was plain, simple and objective, and with regard to which there could be no dispute at all as to whether a man had or had not come up to the test. Anybody who rightly interpreted the temper of the House would realise that there was, from almost all quarters of the House, unanimity on one point, and that was with regard to the onus of proof. I think the House, was determined that the onus of proof in regard to these matters should rest upon the Employment Exchange and not upon the man. We were criticised because in our Subsection (1) we endeavoured to devise a scheme which put the onus of proof in the first instance, upon the Employment Exchange, and then, when certain things were proved, upon the man.
It was pointed out, and I mast confess with some force, that, whereas the things which the Employment Exchange had to prove might be comparatively
simple, and the onus upon them might develop into a mere formality in the course of administration, the onus upon the man was a very serious thing indeed. Consequently, it was obvious that, whatever extension of the Hayday formula we adopted, we must bear in mind two cardinal points—firstly, that there must be an objective and not a subjective test, and, secondly, that the onus of proof must be upon the Employment Exchange and not upon the claimant. With regard to the placing of the onus of proof upon the Employment Exchange and not upon the worker, it will be manifest to anyone who reads our Clause that that is carried out. With regard to the first point, as to a definite, clear and simple objective test, we have provided in the proposed new Clause for directions—reasonable directions—being given, and we have provided that they shall be in writing. There at any rate is something which will put this matter beyond dispute. There will be a written record of the directions given to the man, and, assuming the directions to be given, the test will be, did he or did he not carry out those directions? If he carries out the directions, if he does what he is told to do, no man is going to be disqualified because of the mere subjective state of his mind. He has done what he was told to do; he has gone round to these places and asked for work and so on; and, if he has done that, he is not going to be disqualified.
I would submit to the House two considerations. With regard to finance I do not, as I have already said, want to trespass upon the ground which may appropriately be dealt with by the Minister herself, but I would like to make this observation. It is all very well to say that this is going to cost a lot of money. In a sense it costs my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a lot of money, but it must be remembered that to a very large extent the money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to pay is money which otherwise would have been paid, either in meal or in malt, by guardians of the poor; and, as far as the national economy is concerned, it is very largely a taking of money out of one pocket and putting it into another. Secondly, I think inevitably the tendency of the new Clause must be to encourage the work of the Employment Exchanges in that
direction in which they most need encouragement and in which we sincerely hope for the most fruitful and useful results, namely, the work-finding side of their activities. After all, although, of course, there must be precautions to prevent people who are not entitled to it taking advantage of the scheme, everyone will agree that the officials of the various Employment Exchanges up and down the country are much better employed in finding other people employment than in putting them off benefit. I hope this Clause, if the House accepts it, will give the Employment Exchanges a push in the right direction. I earnestly hope they will be able to devote more of their activities to employment-finding and less to the other side.
I ought to say one or two words about the phrase in brackets, "usually adopted in the district in which the claimant resides," because I see that is the subject of one or two Amendments. That qualification, of course, applies to the second half of the Clause. I want to make it quite plain that, with regard to these schemes of transference which come under the first part of the Clause, they remain quite unaffected for the reasons I have given. The Exchange officials have a right to notify a man of suitable work, and it may be suitable work, as I said before, even though it is not in his district and in his own occupation, but it is obvious, having regard to the phrase in brackets, that an official of an Employment Exchange cannot send a man outside a reasonable limit of his own district to look for work—to take a situation, yes, but to tramp about and look for work outside his own district, no. That is the effect of the Clause. It is obvious that, within certain limits, there may be instructions to go outside any defined area. To give an illustration of what I mean, you may have men who work at the London Docks and live at Edmonton. The custom of the dockers who live at Edmonton, no doubt, is to go in some way to the docks. If you are dealing with an Edmonton claimant, the officials would be perfectly entitled to tell him to go to the docks to look for work, because that is the course that is usually adopted in the district—the other Edmonton dockers do the same thing—but you will not have the right to send a man who lives at Land's End to look for work at John o'Groats, nor to send a man who lives at
John o'Groats to look for work at Land's End. The Clause gives us a satisfactory chance of carrying out our administration in the way we all want to carry it out.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) said he need not tell the House—he need not tell anyone who knows him—that it was his earnest desire to administer the Bill fairly. Of course it was. It is not the intention of anyone that a single honest man should be deprived of benefit and, not only that, but be dubbed a work-shy man, which is worse still. But, unfortunately, the scheme has broken down. We have devised here a short, concise, simple test. There can be no doubt whether a man has or has not carried it out. I earnestly commend the Clause to the House, and I believe the House will find that it will carry out that which is the common intention of all Members in whatever part they sit, namely, that an honest man who is trying without success to get work shall no longer be deprived of benefit.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: We have now come down to what is almost the concluding stage of an extraordinary story. I hope the House will pardon me if I trace it a little further back, because the origin of the story has something to do with the position in which we find ourselves to-day. As far back as the days of the last Government, complaints were made from this bench by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary of what he termed administrative persecution. He certainly gave the impression then, and the impression was given by other hon. Members opposite during the election campaign, that the action of our Government administratively was so to twist this Clause 4 that people were thrown out of benefit because of it, in defiance of their rights. That was the impression given to the whole country. It was the impression upon which a great many seats were won or lost, and the right hon. Lady certainly came back here pledged to remove that administrative persecution. The first thing she had to admit when she came back was that there was no administrative persecution at all, and that the injustices, the injuries and the disadvantages that were suffered resulted not from administration but from the law,
and the excuse she gave in the early days of this Parliament to Members of her own party who pressed her immediately to implement the pledges she had given before the election, was that she could not do it without changing the law. It did not lie within her administrative capacity. Therefore she was faced with this problem from the first moment that she took office. She was seized of it in the beginning of June. It was not a thing that burst on her suddenly. She was under an obligation to the country and to Members behind her to find a legislative solution of the problem.
During the period that elapsed from June to November she had ample opportunities of consultation and conference with Members opposite. If reports in the papers are true, she, in fact, faced them on more than one occasion. The whole subject was debated at the Labour Party Conference. She had the assistance of an expert committee which she herself set up to consider the point, and, finally, she had the assistance of those most expert in the administration of the fund, the members of her own staff in her own Ministry. As the result of those four months' deliberations, she produced a Bill which contained a Clause which she certainly gave us the impression on the Second Reading—and we were entitled to believe it—that she meant, and was in fact going to remedy the injustice of which complaint had been made before. We, on this side, take her sincerity for granted. We take it for granted that when she said, "The Clause I am proposing fulfils my pledge and does away with those grievances of which I complained before the Election, and which I said if I was returned I would do away with," she believed that the Clause had that result, and that she believed it not casually, hut after a long and careful survey of the whole scene and having in front of her, as she must have had, the figures which will be affected by the Clause as it appears in the original Bill and the figures as they are affected by this new Clause—the Hayday principle, which was the principle which she had urged upon her, and which she must have had in her mind. What is the result? A Clause which has taken five months' consideration, after consultation with all the interests concerned, is scrapped in the course of a few hours' Debate, and, in
place of it, we have a totally different Clause with a totally different principle, the result of not four months but four days. The Attorney-General would have us believe it is the result of what he called the combined wisdom of the House. The combined wisdom of the House is a euphemism for the pressure of the back benches, and the sniping of a few able Members on the Liberal benches under the ad hoc leadership of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown).
I am astounded at the attitude of the Liberal party on this Clause and on the Bill as a whole. Hon. Members opposite I understand. They have been perfectly candid. They have urged again and again that the question of finance does not and should not be allowed to enter into the matter at all. That I understand to be their contention. It is not the contention of hon. Members below the Gangway, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made a speech which was admitted on all sides to be the feature of the Second Reading Debate. He made an impassioned and much-quoted appeal for the more careful supervision of our national finances, for economy and for the need of surveying the increase of our national income rather than the increase of our national expenditure. Of course, if he did not mean it to refer to this Bill, why did he choose that opportunity of making it? Why should he talk on this Bill about the need for economy unless he regarded it as expenditure which, if it must so far be admitted, must be restricted to what appeared there? They were brave, courageous words compared with the words of most of his followers. Amendments have appeared on the Paper in the name of Members of that party which, if carried, would have had the result of adding something like £10,000,000 to the burden under the Bill. In addition to that, hon. Members on many occasions have gone into the Lobby with hon. Members opposite to vote for Amendments which would have added another £8,000,000 to £10,000,000 to the burden. We are entitled to assume that Members would not put down Amendments and would not go into the Lobby in favour of other people's Amendments unless they really wanted them carried. There is no question of putting the Government into a difficulty, or voting with Members op-
posite in a hopeless fight for an Amendment which could not possibly be carried. That would be insincere. Hon. Members below the Gangway are sincere, and we must take it that they meant to add to the expenditure under the Bill another £20,000,000.

Mr. FOOT: In view of the accusation of insincerity—

Mr. STANLEY: No.

Mr. FOOT: In view of his criticism, will the hon. Gentleman explain why it was that on Thursday last we insisted that there should be a statutory expression of the obligation upon the workman to find work himself?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: That has nothing to do with the case I have made, that they were moving Amendments and that they were going into the Lobby in support of an expenditure of another £20,000,000 a year. [Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): It will, perhaps, facilitate the Debate if the hon. Member will address the Chair.

Mr. STANLEY: An hon. Member below the Gangway asked where I got my authority, and I may say that I obtained it from the records of this House.

Mr. SEXTON: Where does the hon. Gentleman get his extra £20,000,000?

Mr. STANLEY: If the hon. Member would study the Amendments which have appeared in the course of this Bill in the name of hon. Members below the Gangway, and also the Divisions in which they have taken part, and will add up the amounts involved, he will find that they come to between £16,000,000 and £20,000,000 a year. Hon. Members below the Gangway are, admit, more than any other party, in favour of the Council of State—all for the State and none for the party. We cannot accuse them of any desire to make party capital or party advantage out of this Bill. All the same, one must admit that they are, in fact, going to have the best of both worlds in that the eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will provide some
splendid quotations when they address their chambers of commerce or open their local bazaars, and the humanity and courage of individual hon. Members will in the more industrial gatherings provide excellent material. Like the pope referred to in Gibbons' "Decline and Fall," hon. Members below the Gangway opposite may, perhaps, be acquitted of the graver charge of political insincerity but they must stand convicted of political instability.
We are brought up against the position which has been outlined in the extremely able speech of the learned Attorney-General. His eloquent tongue has served him once more, as it has in the past, verbally to reconcile the irreconcilable. That speech, which might have been a very excellent speech, with which one might have agreed if it had been a speech introducing this Clause for the first time on the Committee stage of the Bill, rather failed in its purpose when it left out all the intermediate stage. It is no use pretending that this new Clause is a kind of drafting Amendment, and more or less expresses in rather abler and more generous terms what the Minister meant when she put down the Clause in the original Bill. It is no use saying that, when the intention of the right hon. Lady and the learned Attorney-General was to exclude from benefit 90,000 people who are under this Clause now to be included. The learned Attorney-General did not attempt to deal with that position. I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Lady, when she comes to address this House, how she proposes to get herself out of the dilemma in which we on this side see her to be. She must justify herself either to her followers or to the fund. She has to explain how it came about, if she put down a Clause in the Bill which purported to carry out the election pledges of hon. Members opposite, and meant it to remove grievances, which all of us outside party affiliations believe to be existing under the old system, that at the same time that she put that down, assuring hon. Members opposite that she had fulfilled their purpose, she knew that 90,000 people who ought to be included were in fact going to be excluded from benefit. If she had really thought that, and that under her Clause, 90,000 deserving cases were not going to get benefit, would she not have been guilty of a gross betrayal of
hon. Members opposite and of the electorate who voted for them because of the pledges they had given?
If that is not so, there is the other side of the dilemma. If she really believed that the Clause as put down covered everybody who ought to come in, that under its operations no one who was genuinely seeking work would be excluded, how, then, is she going to justify to the others, to the contributories, to the insured people, to the employers, to the taxpayers, the addition of 90,000 people who, according to her own statement and according to her own judgment, were not really intended to be included in the fund? The right hon. Lady has a heavy burden laid upon her if she is going to explain which of these two is the correct version of what is at stake. Surely, never has a Minister come before this House of Commons with a proposal in a Bill supported by a White Paper prepared in her own Ministry, and meant, I suppose, to bolster up her own case, which has contained such damning criticism of the whole of her proposal. [Interruption.] When we find that a Government Department issues a White Paper trying to estimate the cost in the future, it shows that a great deal will depend on the extent to which claimants under the proposals of the Government will continue to search for work on their own initiative. A great deal of the future operations of this fund will depend on the extent to which they are willing to co-operate with the Exchanges in respect of finding work. We have reached a position when we can say that the action of the Government, as taken by their own authority, will have the one result only of discouraging the search for work among the unemployed.
I want to deal with the Clause as it stands, because there are certain things in it which I fail to understand. I should like to know what is actually meant by the notification of vacancies. It seems to me—and I hope to be corrected if I am wrong—that under that definition it would be in order for, say, a steel works to say to the Employment Exchange: "We are opening up some more plant next Wednesday, and shall be able to take on 100 men," and for the Exchange to be able to notify all the unemployed steel-workers within the
area—perhaps 200 or 300 of them—that there would be vacancies for 100 men on Wednesday, and therefore they would be forced to apply for those vacancies. It is rather doubtful from what the learned Attorney-General said whether that was in fact the case, because he pointed out that they would have no power—I think he quoted the case of a shipwright—to insist that they should go every day and present themselves at the places where, every day, vacancies were occurring. He left the impression on my mind that this particular definition of the Clause did not operate unless the Employment Exchange was able definitely to say to the man: "There is a vacancy for you; not for you in competition with others, but for you yourself." If it is the case that they can only notify a vacancy which they are certain that a particular man can get it will render the whole of these provisions practically nugatory.
With regard to the obligation to carry out the directions given by the officer of the Employment Exchange, I agree that, as far as that goes, it strengthens the Clause. It has practically put back the Clause to what it was before, because administratively the insurance officer might be empowered to impose on the man exactly the same conditions in the search for work which are now held to be the test of whether he is genuinely seeking work or not. But the trouble under the Clause as it stands is that it will be quite incapable of proof. The practice very largely to-day is that when a man goes to some particular employer and applies for a job which is refused him, he gets a chit from the employer to say he has been there, and it is proof to the insurance officer that he has been seeking work. Under this Clause there will be no such obligation upon him. He cannot be expected to bring back a chit from the employer, because the directions can only be applied to seeking work. Once employment has been refused him the directions do not apply. No onus is put upon him, therefore, of bringing back any proof. What possible chance has the insurance officer of proving, if he suspects the man did not go as directed to the steel-works for a job where 100 men are required, that the man did not go there when, in fact, he did not go there, unless something is done to put the onus on the man to bring back a written statement. It is clear that as far as that is
concerned the Clause will never be of any effect, because the matter will be utterly incapable of proof. Are we really going to get down to the situation, which is borne out by the White Paper, that there is no test left for seeking work at all? The White Paper will show that after this new Clause comes into effect, all those disqualifications of not genuinely seeking work will remain operative only in about 5,000 cases, while there will be the danger of bringing in for benefit applicants who, under the present system, have not considered it worth while making an application but who under the new Act will believe that it will be worth while having a shot at.
I am not going to deal with the financial provisions, although I may say that the right hon. Lady's attitude has been rather extraordinary. I think that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked for £50,000, so that the provisions of this Bill might be brought on during the depth of the winter instead of being left over. The right hon. Lady's heart bled for him, but she was unable to make any financial concessions at all, as she had already overstepped the limit. Another hon. Member made an impassioned appeal for an increase of benefits to children. The right hon. Lady's heart bled again, but she was still unable to overstep the limit she had already exceeded. Yet, in the course of a six hours' Debate, in response to arguments which were presented, I agree, most eloquently, but which she must have heard hundreds of times before the right hon. Lady over-stepped the limit to the extent of £4,000,000, a large proportion of which, do not let us forget, falls not on the Exchequer and the taxpayer, but on the insured worker and the employer. [An HON. MEMBER: "And they will not grumble."]
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I know, were sincere in their request that there should be no question of a genuine man being penalised because of the regulation. Well, they have obtained that. They were equally sincere, I believe, in determining that no one who was not genuinely seeking work should be allowed to take advantage of money contributed by people who were in just as poor and indigent circumstances. If they will read this Clause and consider it calmly, apart from any question of their victory over their
Front Bench, I wonder whether they would think that they have got that. They stand for work or maintenance. By that they mean maintenance only if work is not available. I believe that hon. Members opposite who were the first to cheer that doctrine will, before long, realise that in getting what they wanted, what they genuinely needed and what they were entitled to demand, have got something far more than that—something which will upset the whole of our unemployment insurance system—something that will make impossible the good efforts of those of us who have had to argue with people from abroad whose one impression of this country is that this is a country living on the dole, that men can choose whether they want to work or not, and that if they do not want to work they can live on what is called the dole. We have been arguing against that view and have explained that it is not a dole, but rests upon an insurance principle, and that the people only get what they have a right to. Hon. Members opposite have made it impossible in the future to justify what we have always been able to justify up to now. They have made it impossible for us to contradict hereafter, as we have contradicted, the statement that the dole system has crept into this country.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I am sure that the House has listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member. I can only hope that he will not long remain an ad hoc leader of his party, but that he will become a real leader, with his debating power and his eloquent assistance. I was very much amused with his gentle handling of the party with which I am connected. He had to be gentle, because it so happens that in this Parliament the occupation of the journalist who in the last Parliament went into the Division records of our party for political capital and for spicy paragraphs, has gone. The hon. Member will be the first to admit from his search of the records that only one or two Members of our party have gone in the Lobby to vote for the financial increases to which he has referred. He talked about insincerity. He did not accuse us of insincerity, but he talked about insincerity. He might have remembered the fact from his study of the Division lists that there are hon. Members sitting on these benches
whom, electorally, it would have paid a great deal better in their necessitous areas to have voted with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his friends when, in what they wanted for the wives and children, they were demanding the scale that had been advocated in the Labour party's manifesto. We resisted that, and I hope that the hon. Member, when he is subjecting us to his kindly criticism, will remember that to our credit, as well as the fact that one or two hon. Members did act to our discredit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]
The hon. Member is the last Member of this House to use a Biblical reference in this respect. He referred to the tribe of Reuben. While the tribe of Reuben were unstable as water, they were found amongst the 12 tribes in the happy land. The hon. Member must know that in his party there are 180 members who belong to the tribe of Dan, and if the hon. Member when he resumes his Scriptural quotations will go to the Book of Numbers he will find that in the day of battle the question was asked, "Why doth Dan remain in the ships?" They were absent from the battle, just as his friends have been absent from the Division Lobby. If we are Reuben, his friends are Dan, and I leave it at that.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: While the hon. Member is referring to the Book of Numbers, will he remember that the tribe of Reuben did not cross the Jordan?

Mr. BROWN: I used the exact phrase. If the Noble Lord will pursue his Biblical studies a little further and go to the Book of Revelation he will find that whereas the tribe of Dan is not found amongst the 12 tribes in the Book of Revelation, the tribe of Reuben is found there. That was an impromptu reply. I will now proceed to say what I had prepared to say, and it may perhaps not be so lively as that which I have just said. I welcome this Clause for certain very clear reasons. My late Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, when he sat on these benches made—and every industrial Member of the Liberal party during the last four Parliaments has made—one plea, that the nation should seriously consider the state of the unemployed men in the
distressed black spots of this country. Three times we have put forward that plea on three major Unemployment Insurance Bills—in 1920, 1924 and 1927. Three times our plea has been denied by this House, and by different Ministers. Our plea was that Parliament should not put a form of words into an Act of Parliament which it could not define in respect of varying causes and varying conditions of unemployment in various parts of the country.
What did Parliament decide to do? In each case Parliament decided that while there were three British words "genuinely seeking work," to be found in an English dictionary, and in common use, it was impossible to define them in an Act of Parliament. I am not using my own phrase, I am using the phrase of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), when he moved the Second Reading of the 1927 Bill, which we are now reviewing. I agree with him. Then what right has Parliament to expect the unemployed man to live up to the implications of such a test and, equally, what right has Parliament to ask the 1,089 insurance officers throughout the Kingdom to interpret in the terms of Leith, Middlesbrough, London, South Wales, Lanarkshire and the cotton and textile districts, all of them differing in the outworking of the industry, a form of words which could not if based on a subjective basis be made fair and equal as between the State and between one insured man and another? Three times the House has failed. It has failed because it tried to do the impossible. Every time the administration has been tightened up, not through the intervention of the Minister, but by case-made law and by umpire-made law, it has become more and more evident to those of us who sit for industrial areas where there is great necessity, and who meet these men face to face, that the man was more and more put on his defence the moment he came to claim benefit. That is the root of the trouble.
The right hon. Lady need never have come down with this re-drafted Clause if she had accepted the implications of the Amendments to the original Clause from all quarters of the House. I welcome the Clause for the reason that, for the first time since 1921, we have got a definite objective test, and I am pre-
pared to stand by the administration of that test on the whole of the insurance Fund and the whole insurance system. If the worst of the pessimistic views of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley) and his friends are realised, then the House will have to do what it ought to have done many months ago; it will have to face the position of 300,000 or 400,000 honest British working men and women who are now out of work, for whom no fund has been found, and they will have to take the burden off the distressed areas and face it in the interests of the nation as a whole.

Mr. MAXTON: I always enter into a dispute on Scriptural matters with very great hesitation, but if my recollections are accurate, and if the gentlemen to whom reference has been made, Reuben and Dan, belonged to a body of work-people who left their work in Egypt because the work was too heavy, and went out searching for a land flowing with milk and honey, I do not think of them as genuinely seeking full-time employment. With respect to Clause 4, I am quite sure that the Clause as redrafted is not quite so gloomy as one would gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley), nor am I satisfied that it is quite so beautiful and glorious as is indicated by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown).

Mr. E. BROWN: I hope the hon. Member will not take that interpretation of what I said. The ground upon which I welcome the Clause is that, without going into the question of merit, it does provide an objective test. It is on that ground alone that I welcome it.

Mr. MAXTON: It seems to me, on the surface, that an objective test is a tremendous advance on the position which existed before, but it will require considerable experience of the operation of it in administration before we can say whether it will meet the desires and needs of the unemployed person. In 1924 I got an assurance from the Minister that the "not genuinely seeking work" Clause would not be used except to catch the man, who, we all admit, was a loafer. It was the intention that that Clause should be so operated, but we know from the experience of five years that it has been used to cause very grave suffering to a large proportion of the population.
I hope, therefore, that the new Clause will bear out in practice the most optimistic hopes that anyone may possibly have of it. The hon. Member for Westmorland is very anxious in regard to the fund, and so is the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), that we should regard ourselves as trustees of it; and that we should handle it with that prudence and forethought that the honest trustee shows in his work. May I remind them that when their party became the responsible Government of this country and became the responsible trustees for the fund, from the year 1925 to the early part of 1929 they so administered the fund that it went from being about £7,000,000 in debt into being £40,000,000 in debt.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): £35,000,000 to £37,000,000.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely hon. and right hon. Gentleman who administered a trust in that way are not in a position to lecture hon. Members on this side on the matter of trusteeship. On two occasions during that period they introduced Bills which were supposed to clear up the matter and put it on a sound footing, and the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) asserted that they were going to do so. I can remember him coming forward—this is why I am very dubious about White Papers issuing from this Department, including the one we had to-day—and claiming, on the basis of the 1927 Act, that the Fund would be solvent by now. When hon. Members opposite talk of not getting reasonable opportunities for discussion they will remember that the 1925 Bill was taken upstairs in Committee, rushed through at all hours of the day and night before the holiday period, and that the 1927 Bill was taken on the Floor of the House under the guillotine.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member will surely recollect, when he talks about rushing through the Bill, that the Closure Motion on his own friends was filially moved by the present Secretary of State for War.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that was merely a passing incident in the proceedings. He talks about the Closure. May I remind him
that on the 1927 Bill, when the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was claiming that the actuarial basis of the Bill was not sound, and that instead of reviewing it three years hence it should be reviewed at the end of one year, that the Government allowed one speech only on the Amendment and the Closure was moved in the middle of the speech of the hon. Member for Camlachie? I made a protest at the time beyond what is usual in Parliamentary procedure, and the right hon. Gentleman expelled me for a period of three weeks from the proceedings of the House. That is their idea of free discussion; that is their conception and observance of the liberty of discussion for an Opposition. I hope there will be no humbug talked about that.
Let hon. Members opposite realise that the proposition that is here involved is not Parliamentary procedure or the handling of a fund, but whether a large proportion of our fellow-citizens are going to be treated as fellow-citizens. Hon. Members opposite will persist in regarding the unemployed men as being of a lower moral standard to themselves; they cannot get 17s. a week unless you put a detective on their track and trace them from workshop to workshop. The men whom they want to treat in this way are exactly of the same type as anybody else. Hon. Members on these benches have been unemployed at one time or another, they know what unemployment means, and we resent the suggestion that 1,250,000 of our people cannot be trusted with the miserable amount of money that is provided under this Bill. I urge the House not to spend one minute more on this proposal. For the first time we are laying down rules and regulations which treat the unemployed men as men, and I urge that we should accept the Clause and proceed to the further points in the Bill.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I rise to say only a few words upon the Clause and to express my admiration of the faith of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). According to him, he does not care what the merits or value of the Clause may be, but, as it contains a definite statement, he is prepared to support it whether its effects are good or bad. There is no other way of putting it. The duty of those who discuss a
Clause of this kind is not merely to see whether the test laid down is a definite test, but whether it is a good one, and whether it is going to have a really beneficial influence in the circumstances and for the purpose for which it is used. I believe that under the administration of the not genuinely seeking work test a considerable number of people who were anxious to get employment, and tried hard to get employment, were deprived of their benefit by decisions which I de not think were justified; but I am also quite clear in my view, which has been supported time after time in conversations with people who have had very serious experiences of going before various courts of referees, that the conditions under which the genuinely seeking work test was administered did very often allow the glib-tongued man to get benefit to which he was not entitled.
Now we are faced with an attempt to deal with that situation, and I find little here which is going to prevent the man who does not want work from getting benefit. It is true that there are some lines laid down. It is laid down that he shall not have refused a situation; also that he should follow certain written instructions. But one would have thought that it was elementary in any administration of an Act of this kind that a man who could not come within the tests laid down in this Clause would certainly not be entitled to benefit. The criticism which destroys this Clause is that it leaves the man entirely in this position, that not the smallest obligation is put upon him to do other than obey the instructions of the officer of the Employment Exchange or accept a job which is definitely offered to him. Under this Clause there is no obligation on the man to show any personal initiative of any kind—[Interruption.] Surely no one calls it an exhibition of personal initiative for a man to obey written instructions which come from somebody else? I should have thought that it was very important indeed that some obligation of personal initiative should be put on the man.
Thousands and thousands of working men in this country are not content merely to obey written instructions given to them. They are showing personal initiative every day, going through great privations and making efforts, very serious efforts, sometimes very exhaustive
in character, to try to find work, and I cannot think it is right that the man who does not make an effort to find work, who is content merely to obey written instructions which are laid down, should be placed upon the same basis as the man who is making a serious attempt to get work. In these circumstances I submit that the Clause really fails to deal with what is, after all, a difficult situation, and unless something is put in which does suggest and encourage personal initiative on the part of the unemployed man, it will fail lamentably in achieving the purpose for which it has been suggested.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has proved quite conclusively the contention of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who complained about unemployed men being looked upon as something different from the rest of the community. The hon. and learned Member complains about the initiative being taken from the unemployed man. In his own profession I think he is barred from exercising any initiative. He must wait until somebody comes to him with work and puts it into his hands.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The right hon. Gentleman must at least point this out, if he is going to suggest that, that while members of my profession are debarred from going out and seeking work we do not ask the community to support us when we cannot get it.

Mr. SHAW: I am more interested in this Clause than in scoring debating points, or I think I could prove that that statement could be examined. What, after all, are the facts? The hon. and learned Member admits that four plain, definite and straightforward English words, which one would think could not be misinterpreted—"not genuinely seeking work"—have been used to deprive perfectly genuine and willing workers of benefit. If it be possible to deprive perfectly genuine working men, looking for work, of benefits, with a definite clear-cut condition like that then the only safe thing to do is to give the man the benefit of the doubt. At the moment the onus of proof is absolutely thrown upon him. There he is, often imperfectly educated, often very shy, with a very limited know-
ledge of English, and he has to prove his case to people who are better educated and, if what the hon. and learned Member says is true, to people who are not sympathetic as well.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I said nothing about personal sympathy. What I said was that the administration of the not genuinely seeking work test did give a real advantage to the glib tongued man and undoubtedly on occasions the other man was kept out.

Mr. SHAW: I am not going to quibble, but a great deal more than that was said. The position now is uneven. On the one side you have education, power, and the staff of a huge Government Department; and on the other side the workman. The picture is out of perspective. If the words "not genuinely seeking work" could be consistently and properly applied, I myself might regard the Clause as being unnecessary; but during these discussions the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has produced a handful of bill headings from different firms showing that one of his own constituents had been to firm after firm, had literally forced his way into the offices, and had received documents from all these firms to prove that he had been genuinely seeking work, and still was turned down on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking work.
These words have been so interpreted that I am inevitably led to the conclusion that the only way to deal with a man and to give him a real chance is to give him the benefit of the doubt. The insurance officer will not be long without information if there is what is colloquially termed "a wrong un" about. If the insurance officer has reason to suspect that efforts to get work are not being made, he has the power to see that efforts are made. The Clause is generous, I agree, and it ought to be generous; it says that the man must be given the benefit of the doubt. The experience of the last four and a-half or five years has gone to prove that unless the man gets the benefit of the doubt he will not get justice. There is not a Member of this House who, with those four words "not genuinely seeking work" before him, would take away the benefit from a man who could prove that he had been seeking work. Then look at the ridiculousness of the position.
Let me give an instance of what occurs. Take the case of a Lancashire manufacturing town. Everyone who has lived in such a town will know that what I am saying is correct. Every mill in a depressed state of trade has its waiting list. As a rule, or in 99 per cent. of the cases, workers are taken on in turn. If a man is not there he misses his turn. If he walks from firm to firm he never will get work. I appeal to the House to give us the Clause. It may be giving a man the benefit of the doubt, but if it does that it is time he had it. There never will be any satisfactory conclusion to this matter until vacancies are notify-able by employers to Employment Exchanges. The Employment Exchanges grew up in an atmosphere of distrust. The good employer never needed to ask them for a workman, for there was always a workman available and there was never a decent working man who needed to go to an Exchange, because he could get a job without it. We had the extraordinary position, then, of the best employers and workmen both looking upon the Employment Exchange as something inferior that ought to be shunned. That is the difficulty that we have had to fight our way through. But those days are past. I believe that this Clause will finally bring to a head what many of us have been thinking for some years past—the question as to whether vacancies should not always be notify-able so that it can he known with definiteness and accuracy whether jobs are vacant or not.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I will not fellow the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken further than to say that, as I understand the matter, the trade unions very strongly object in many cases to all vacancies being compulsorily notified to the Employment Exchanges. That is one of the difficulties in the way. The learned Attorney-General spoke of this new Clause as being the result of a council of state in a sense, and as representing the collective wisdom of the House. I never heard such a misrepresentation of that phrase "collective wisdom" in my life. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that, although we on this side are not far short of 300 in number and are nearly half the House, not a single individual of us was consulted on
this question. If our counsel had been taken we should not now be discussing this particular Clause.
With regard to the trade unions, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) takes the line always that every man out of work is "genuinely seeking work." I would like to call attention to the conditions laid down by a number of the trade unions on this subject. The Minister of Labour the other day said that she had three pages of rules that had been drawn up by various trade unions on this question of seeking employment, and she added that every one of those rules was more severe than the Clause which the House turned down last week. If that be true with regard to the Clause formerly in the Bill, how much more severe must the trade union regulations be than the Clause now before us! There are two or three of these trade union rules that are not without interest. Here is the rule of the South Wales Miners' Federation, which is apparently more suspicious of its members than the hon. Member for Bridgeton is of Glasgow people. This is the rule:
Every member in receipt of payment of benefit due to a stoppage of work shall make every endeavour possible to obtain employment, and in all cases in which the executive council or district meeting, as the case may be, is satisfied that a bona fide endeavour is not being made by a member to obtain work, it shall have full power to withhold payment of benefit.
Apparently there must be cases where bona fide efforts are not made to obtain work. Next is the rule of the National Union of Railwaymen:
In the event of a member in receipt of weekly payments failing to seek for employment or refusing to accept employment offered to him without reasonable cause, the branch to which he belongs shall immediately, on proof thereof, suspend him from the benefit of this fund, and report the same to the executive committee.
Then there is the rule of the Amalgamated Society of Wood Workers:
Members in receipt of unemployment benefit must look for work and shall not engage in any occupation for profit or award during working hours. They must attend each branch meeting or send a satisfactory apology.
I suggest that the collective wisdom of the trade union Members opposite might be taken to mean that the words we are discussing were not satisfactory in their own trade unions.

An HON. MEMBER: Is not the implication of all those rules to put the onus of proof on the particular branch committee?

Sir A. POWNALL: The man has to seek work; that is clear. But now under this Clause the man has not to seek work unless told to do so by an officer of the insurance department, and the position is entirely different. Those three rules that I have quoted are far more severe than the original Clause 4 which was withdrawn. I appeal to trade union Members opposite, who have a big responsibility with regard to their own fund, and who have found, it may be by bitter experience, that rules such as those quoted are necessary, to remember their dual capacity, first of all as trustees of this Insurance Fund, and, secondly, as trustees for the taxpayer. In both our capacities as Members we are asked to take £2,000,000 from a fund which honestly cannot afford it; that we all know. We are also asked to take £2,000,000 from the taxpayer, and he, I believe, cannot honestly afford it either.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the hon. Member not see that what the man loses the taxpayers gain? It is necessary to keep these men somehow; they cannot be allowed to starve on the street.

Sir A. POWNALL: But we are discussing an Unemployment Insurance Bill. If we are going to abandon the whole principle of insurance, no doubt the hon. Lady is right, but if we are to try to keep this as an Unemployment Insurance scheme the question of insurance should not be allowed to go by the board.

Miss WILKINSON: The hon. Member was arguing about the effect on the tax-payer.

Sir A. POWNALL: It is admitted that at the present time rather less than one-fifth of the vacancies are notified to the Employment Exchanges. The Actuary's Report in the White Paper circulated this morning shows that one-quarter, or possibly one-third, may be notified to the exchanges. But even then, on the showing of the Minister of Labour, three-quarters or so of the vacancies will never be known by the insurance officials. How possibly can insurance officials who have this task of notifying vacancies to individuals do so when it is admitted that three-quarters, or it may be four-fifths,
of the vacancies are never known by them. You are putting an absolutely impossible task upon the insurance officials in giving them this duty to do.
There is one further point. The Minister of Labour, in reply to a question of mine recently asking her how many of these who had been disqualified as not genuinely seeking work would be brought in under the Bill, said that she could not give any figure, but that she intended to remove all the cases of hardship that had occurred in the past in this connection. She said that on the original Clause 4. If that was the case with the old Clause 4, how can she now bring in a new Clause which on her own showing will allow 80,000 or 90,000 more to benefit, when the previous Clause 4 was to ensure that no case of hardship was left unmet? As I see it, this is really where we join issue with the more extreme of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We believe that individual effort is best for the country as a whole. Many hon. Members opposite think that the State should interfere and manage all our affairs. My disappointment in this matter, however, is with the Members of the Liberal party. I had always understood that in regard to the broad issue of State interference they would not find themselves in the same Lobby as the Socialists, but the blame to-day for the passing of this Clause will not lie so much with hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House as with those who belong to the Liberal party. I believe that in course of time they will bitterly regret the course that they propose to take this evening.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. HAYDAY: I intervene because of the important stage that the discussion has reached. We have had a recapitulation of many of the arguments that were applied to the original Clause 4. Among those arguments was that of the last speaker—that trade unions have much tighter regulations, and that if only the trade union regulations could be made to apply by Act of Parliament everything would be quite all right. The House may well remember that most of these out-of-work donation funds in trade unions are voluntary in character and are open to such members as can subscribe to them. It has also to be remembered that there is no State grant
towards those funds and no tax on industry or employers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am pleased to see the narrow, mercenary, appreciation to which hon. Members opposite can give utterance. They say, in effect, this: "If we had our way, we would place the National Unemployment Insurance Scheme on the same basis and with the same restrictions as the trade unions' voluntary contributions and make the whole of its income come from the resources and the wages of the employed persons only, without State or employers' assistance." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly, you must. I am pleased to learn that this is the very restricted point of view which Members of the Opposition take in this matter. It shows the pretence of their desire to help those who are unemployed in consequence of the unnatural social order that is perpetuated by the Opposition.
I want to say one word about personal initiative. One would imagine that, as a result of the present Clause, there would be developed a lack of personal effort and initiative in seeking work, judging from what hon. Members opposite have said. In this connection, may I call attention to a paragraph which appeared in the "Manchester Evening Chronicle" on 10th December? It was headed "600 apply for six jobs." Do you want greater personal initiative than that? The paragraph described how the police controlled the crowd and how men clung to the banisters. A crowd of between 500 and 600 men gathered outside the premises of an electrical supply company in Cannon Street, Manchester, in reply to an advertisement which had appeared in the "Evening Chronicle" the day before for a half-a-dozen men. There you had six hundred men showing personal initiative at the very moment when the subject matter of this Clause was appearing in that newspaper. Yet, we are told that this will destroy the personal initiative of the men and that they will wait until they get their written instructions. It has always been a libel on British character to say that you can destroy that eternal search for work that goes on among all. It should not he said until you can prove that there are among them a number who will prefer benefit to making any effort. The paragraph to which I have referred describes
how in the crush to get work the banisters were broken down and the police had to be called in. Hon. Members have no right to taunt the unemployed that this is going to give them an opportunity of idling when it is known that the Exchanges can only supply seventeen out of every hundred applicants for work.
My right hon. Friend said that you should compel all vacancies to be notified. You know what that would mean. You would not have many vacancies to fill as you have filled by personal initiative. Many of the men by personal efforts under these restrictions create a job. Do you think the trade unions, with all the restrictive influences which do not permit them to administer State funds to their members, are going to break off personal contact with their members to enable an Exchange, perhaps, to offer the work to non-unionists and so deny the right to trade unions to continue their connection with the negotiation and arrangement of the problem? Do you think employers will come in until the Exchanges themselves and their machinery have had a soul breathed into them? You must have a better and a more live department for this vacancy-filling agency, developed to the highest possible degree that human energy can conceive, in order that they may be able to trust the Exchanges more than they do now for the filling of vacancies.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask a question?

Mr. HAYDAY: No. I have tried all through the Debate never to put a question to anybody. I think when hon. Members are fortunate enough to be called upon to speak they can work out in their own minds what it is they want to say and say it in their own way. Our present Exchanges and machinery want a human soul breathed into their activities. They have developed into a machine without a soul, and the rule of thumb has been adopted. Turning to the White Paper, I would not place the slightest dependence upon it. Let us examine what it says. My right hon. Friend, in 1927, produced a White Paper from the Department. He said that it was estimated that there would be 30,000 applicants who could not fulfil the 30-stamps qualification by April, 1928. There was an elaborate set of figures arriving
at that computation. Now, in 1929, we get the same Department putting the figure at 120,000 of those who could not fulfil the 30-stamps qualification by April, 1930. That is the value of your White Papers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Under a Socialist Government!"] Never mind what Government. The White Papers are produced by the same machine. That machine grinds on. They gave that wrong estimate in 1927 in spite of all the brains which those men have. When they have actual figures and can base their estimates on facts and actual experience, they can be pretty accurate, but, when called upon to conjecture and to estimate, they cannot, as a machine, estimate the human factors that are involved in an Unemployment Insurance Bill or scheme such as this is. That is where they go wrong. They may sometimes try to please the Department they are serving and may not be over-careful in the way that they arrive at their figures.
The White Paper gives us an estimate and endeavours to prove that if you pass Clause 4, or the present Clause under discussion, it will mean an increased charge of over £4,000,000. Can any hon. Member show me anything in the Clause that modifies the conditions for new applicants for benefit coming on the fund? Under the Clause the tendency will be that persons who have established their claim will be retained longer before they are slung off than they were under the old conditions, but it does not mean the lightening of conditions under which claims are made. Therefore, as it does not provide for new entrants, how can it be said that it is going to cost so much more and that 80,000 or 90,000 people are likely to come in? They say:
The possibility should however not be overlooked that the new provision may have the effect of bringing certain other persons into benefit, for example, married women who have done little or no work since marriage and seasonal workers during the off season.
How can it? There are many married women who have the qualification but who did not make an application because of the harsh conditions for disqualification, and who may now make the claim which they already have if they care to make it. They may make it now, and, having got on the fund, it will be more difficult to turn them off. No married woman can get on the fund under this
Clause if she could not get on the fund before the Clause was introduced. Her claim was as sound—unless she came under the transitional period—before the Clause as it is now. This new Clause does not give her any increased facilities for entry, but it gives her increased facilities for retaining the benefit. In another part the Memorandum says:
The new Clause contains a provision to the effect that claimants for benefit are liable to disqualification if it is shown that without good cause they refuse or fail to carry out reasonable written directions given by an Employment Exchange with a view to assisting them to find suitable employment.
Then in regard to Clause 7 they say:
It is manifestly difficult to make any definite forecast of the financial effect of these changes.
They go on to say that there are on the average 200,000 unemployment books of persons who on some ground or other were ineligible for benefit and by a series of deductions they say you might get from 80,000 to 90,000 of these coming on. Let me put it to the House as clearly as I can. It means that there is a two-months' file numbering 80,000. Out of the 200,000 mentioned in this estimate, there is a large number who are, no doubt, in uninsurable occupations. There are some persons signing on at the Exchanges from uninsurable industries and trades, and there are some among those numbers who cannot claim benefit under any circumstances and in regard to whom the Department up to now has not been able to give us a proper explanation. Eighty thousand are in the two months file and that number is brought into this calculation. True, there may be among that 80,000 some who by reason of illness have ceased to sign at the Exchange, and who are, perhaps, drawing sickness benefit. There may be some who have found employment in uninsurable occupations, and their cards have been put in the two months' file. I asked once how many cards there were in the file representing unemployed persons who had died, and I was told that no figure could be obtained. They do not know. All that they know is that suddenly an unemployed person ceases to sign, and his book goes to the two months' file. In that number are others who have for various reasons been disqualified, and find that it is no good signing.
Therefore, I would say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: "Do not be
afraid of that estimate of £2,000,000, for it is covered under another Clause of the Bill, and provided for in the £8,500,000, the carry over for the transitional period." If anybody asked me, I would estimate—and it can only be a conjecture, as the estimate in this White Paper is—that 30,000 persons have been disqualified for not genuinely seeking work, and have received benefit under the transitional period. When they have been disqualified under that heading, within a week or two they are further disqualified for not having a reasonable period of employment in an insured occupation during the last two years; they are disqualified for not genuinely seeking work under the transitional period, and they must never apply for benefit during the run of that transitional period. This Bill provides for the review of such cases in the extension of the transitional period, and the 40,000 people whom I think the Department have in mind, are perhaps the same 30,000 or 40,000 people whom I have in mind as people who can again re-establish their right to unemployment benefit, and who having got on the Fund, will be retained, because it will not be possible to disqualify them, unless there is some proof on the part of the Exchange that they really have refused to carry out written instructions or accepted the offer of employment.
I welcome the Clause, and feel that it is right that the onus should be on the Exchange. The onus of proof must be there all the time. Let us be clear that, whether the onus of proof is on the Exchange or not, you will never destroy the initiative, which I am proud to feel is in the hearts and minds of every man and woman in this country, to seek for work ceaselessly, because they would prefer work and wages to queue-standing, and visiting some of these establishments for the receipt of benefit. The whole thing is degrading to the men and women who come within the cruel ambit of the machine of the Employment Exchange.

Major SALMON: One is a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) attack the Employment Exchanges in the way that he has done, more especially since he was on the Morris Committee. Those connected with Employment Exchanges in this country know that it is difficult to
find a body of men who do their work so satisfactorily under difficult circumstances.

Mr. HAYDAY: My reference was not to individuals, but to the machine.

Major SALMON: I think it very unfair that a general attack should be made on the officials of a Department who are not here to defend themselves. The Minister realises that this Clause of the Bill will give a great opportunity for patronage. If it becomes law, and the spirit of the Clause is to be carried out, it will necessitate some thousands of officials being put on to ascertain if vacancies occur so that they can be notified. Otherwise, the Exchanges will never be able to keep in touch with vacancies, because it will not be the job of the out-of-works to seek employment. Do not let us disguise the fact that, while the great majority of the workers are ever ready to take on work, there is still a percentage who are work-shy. It is a strong thing to hear, as we did from the Minister of War, that it is good enough when the trades unions are dealing with their own money to put in special regulations, but when we are dealing with State money we do not want to take so much care. That is the effect of his speech, and it strikes me that it would have been a great opportunity for the Minister to have combined in his regulations regulations similar to those of the trade unions when dealing with unemployment. It is beside the question for Members to say that it is degrading to put in any protection. The trades unions do not think that is is degrading, nor does anybody else in the country, and it is unfortunate if we are to go from one extreme to the other.
There are, no doubt, many cases of men genuinely seeking work who have been refused benefit by the rules being too literally and too strictly followed, and surely it would have been possible to have given elasticity to the courts of referees to deal with cases much more on their merits than to have opened the door, as is done by this new Clause. It is going to cost an addition of £4,000,000, but Members of the Government party say that it does not matter how much it will cost, for we have to find all the money that is necessary. I believe the day to be unfortunately nearer than many people think when, if we continue the policy of simply trying to find money rather than work for the unemployed, it
will be the beginning of a serious crisis in this country. We devote far too much time in the House to seeing how we can give money away rather than how we can find work. [HON. MEMBERS: "De-rating!"] I am not permitted to discuss de-rating, but, if ever there were a constructive scheme brought before the country, it was that of de-rating. [Interruption.] It is so easy to jeer and to interrupt. We want, not so much criticism, as a constructive policy of how to find the unemployed real work, instead of giving them doles for nothing.
I hope that the House will give serious consideration before they pass this Clause in its present form. It strikes me that, if you put a notice up in the exchange to say that there are vacancies in such and such a place, that would comply literally with the words of the Clause. On the other hand, I believe that you are going to have far more trouble with the system in this Clause than exists under the present system. The Clause is very undefined. The learned Attorney-General gave us an interesting discourse on the question of the distance to which you will be permitted to send a person for employment. If there were work, say, in Kensington, and a man lived at Dagenham, would it be reasonable to ask him to go from Dagenham to Kensington?

Mr. MILLS: They travel every day.

Major SALMON: Of course they do, but there is nothing here defined as to what would be a reasonable distance. It would be better if the Clause were clarified. It is not clear what was in the minds of the Government, because the Clause has been so rushed, and there are many points that might be discussed, but time does not permit. Yet we are asked to agree to an expenditure of £4,000,000 without the prospect of a halfpenny worth of good to those to whom we really want to do good.

Mr. PRICE: The hon. Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) must have misunderstood the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) when he said that he had made a general attack upon the Employment Exchanges. There was no attack upon the exchanges; on the contrary, the hon. Member pointed out that the exchanges and trade unions were working together. I have listened care-fully to the speeches of certain hon. Mem-
bers, and particularly one by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley), who said that this Clause would tend to discourage the search for work. How can one expect a person to find work in a district where there probably is a large body of persons who are practically a surplus industrial population? I represent a constituency where one-sixth of the total industrial population has been unemployed for the last six years owing to the closing down of mines, blast furnaces and industry generally. Where there is such a surplus industrial population, how can you expect men to search for work when everybody knows that no work can be found? I welcome the Clause because it leaves no shadow of doubt as to how the Employment Exchanges shall deal with cases of this kind.
I do not wish to say anything against the administration of the "genuinely seeking work" condition, but it is asking far too much from the Employment Exchange officials to ask them to search out cases of the kind suggested. There may be a few shirkers, but hon. Members opposite by their speeches suggest that it is a large percentage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] One would assume that it is large from the comments which they make in their speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If the percentage of shirkers is so small, why do they always put the magnifying glass upon it? I think in this Clause we have now got the sense of all the progressive Members of this House. I am glad to say that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite seem in the main now to take the same view as we do. I only wish that the same could he said of hon. Members opposite above the Gangway, and then indeed it might be said that we had that Council of State to which the Prime Minister referred at the opening of the Session. But we must wait for the co-operation of all three parties to attain that. I welcome this Clause because it is part of the pledge which we gave to make the unemployment burden increasingly a national charge, and to take it off the local rates. We are frequently accused of having made promises at the Election which we have not carried out. Here we have at least one instalment.
Hon. Members complain that according to the White Paper £4,000,000 is going to be spent in consequence of the
amended Clause. I am not going into any arguments as to whether the figures are right or not, but I say that it is going to be a national burden, a burden on the taxpayer. We must support these unfortunates in our industrial system, and if the money is not spent out of the taxes, the obvious result will be a further burden on the rates. There is a point in Sub-section (2) of the amended Clause to which I wish to call attention, not by way of criticism, but in order to set a statement from the right hon. Lady when she replies. Sub-section (2), paragraph (c) gives protection to a man who is transferred from one district to another, and it provides that lie shall receive a rate of pay in that district not lower than the average for the district. So far so good, but I wish to point out that in my constituency there are many cases—and I have had frequent complaints on the matter—that men are transferred to other districts far away to work at unskilled work, such as navvy work, road work and the like, and although the rate of pay is the normal rate for that district, they are unable to earn a decent living in consequence of the increased charges involved by rail journeys and lodgings. Further, owing to broken time, bad weather and so forth, they may not be able to work more than two or three days a week.
I have a letter from one man who had been sent right across England, who had only been able to earn 5s. a day on four days of the week. He returned home and was disqualified from benefit for six weeks. I am afraid that there may be some loophole by which such persons may still be deprived of benefit. Under this Clause, the rate of wage may be all that could be desired, but, owing to the conditions of work and the increased burden involved in the man being away from home, he may be unable to earn a decent standard of living. There are two ways in which this matter might be dealt with. Some sort of guarantee of a minimum might be applied in cases of road work assisted by Government schemes, and if that could not be done, and I know there are difficulties, there should be some guarantee that persons, unable to continue working under these conditions, should not be deprived of benefit if they return home. I do not raise these points in any spirit of criticism but in the hope
that the right hon. Lady may be able to clear them up when she replies. I welcome the Clause as amended, and what I have said has been said with the object of making this Clause not only watertight, but truly seaworthy.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Before going into this Clause in detail, may I reply to the accusation made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday)? It seems to be part of the usual procedure of hon. Members opposite to say that we on this side of the House insult the unemployed. They can point to no phrases of any sort which justify such a statement on their part, but I have not the least doubt that what they say here merely represents what they are prepared to say in the country without a single proof of any kind. [HON. MEMBER: "Actions speak louder than words!"] What I would say at once, and I think any Member on this side of the House would agree with it, is that we regard the unemployed, and hon. Members opposite also regard the unemployed, as a set of men much like any other set of men. There are some particularly good ones among them. The general bulk of them are of the ordinary kind, and there are some weaker vessels and a few bad ones. That is the average sample of all mankind, and we look on the unemployed, and I have no doubt hon. Members opposite also look upon them, just as we do on everybody else.
Taking that as the ordinary plain sensible view we come to the present question and to the reason why we need a Clause introducing conditions at all. It is proper that such a Clause should be introduced. I agree with the Attorney-General that the deserving man ought not to be disqualified and on the other hand, to use the right hon. and learned Member's own phrase, that the work-shy ought not to get benefit. If we take the ordinary view of the unemployed, that they are a sample of ordinary mankind, we must agree that there are some, though not a large proportion, who, properly, ought to be disqualified. The last speaker followed the usual line of attacking Members on this side of the House and said that we turned the magnifying glass on the few who might be work-shy. Obviously we do, and obviously that is what any system ought to
do. I ask the House to consider the plain facts of the situation. At the present moment, under the system which has been so criticised, 93 or 94 out of every 100 get their benefit with hardly any question at all and it is only in about 7 per cent. of the total cases that any question arises at all.
I am trying to recall the House to a sense of proportion. In every walk of life a certain number of individuals are, as I have said, weaker vessels than the others and it is with regard to those, and only with regard to those, and not with regard to the 93 per cent. that any question arises. It is in that connection that the whole question of "genuinely seeking work" arises. It is not even with regard to the whole of the remaining 6 per cent. or 7 per cent., but only with regard to about half of them. When we come to them, I am the first to say that after long experience I myself was becoming dissatisfied with the ordinary operation of the "genuinely seeking work" condition, particularly in depressed areas. In the ordinary town with a good turnover of jobs and a diversity of occupations, I doubt if much trouble would exist, but in the really depressed area where there is a large percentage out of work and comparatively few firms working, where men have to be asked to trudge round the district calling on particular firms though there was no real chance of work—that is where the "genuinely seeking work" procedure really breaks down.
As I have explained to the House I had myself already come to the conclusion that we would have to do something to make it betterand I ask the House again to realise that it only affects a tiny percentage, something like 2 or 3 per cent., of the whole of the claimants for benefit. Therefore, the amount of injustice—I am not excusing it in the individual cases where it took place—is about one-third of one per cent. I have not yet heard a single speech from the opposite side that attempts to justify the actual Clause that we are asked to pass to form the whole basis of this system, and to pass for the first time on the Report stage, where, once passed, it can never be reconsidered afterwards. I will deal with the Attorney-General's speech, but with regard to very other speech that has been made, the speakers have contented themselves with pointing out that
in a quite small percentage of eases admitted injustice has happened from the existing genuinely seeking work Clause. On that we are all on common ground, but it was up to them to point out, as I hope it will be pointed out by the Minister of Labour, why she is bringing forward this particular Clause and why she has substituted it for the Clause originally in the Bill.
These two things are amongst the things that I am asking her to do. I take the test laid down, not even a week ago, but laid down by the Attorney-General in his speech this afternoon, and I want to have some explanation from that side to show how, under this new Clause, deserving men will get benefit and the small proportion, but at any rate the admitted proportion, of work-shy, to use the Attorney-General's own phrase, will not get benefit. I wish to show some reason why I think this is an extraordinarily hastily drafted and unworkable Clause. That is the reason why, before this Report stage began, I was, in the general interests of administration, anxious that we should have time to go into it and, if need be, time to bring it up again in a better form after consideration.
Take now the question of the notification of vacancies. First of all there is to be notification of a vacancy either by an
Exchange or another recognised agency, or by or on behalf of an employer.
Haw many vacancies can the Exchanges notify to-day? The most favourable figure is about one-sixth. I see there is a hope expressed that it may rise to a quarter or even a third. I have every practical reason to know that even the figure of one-sixth is probably too favourable, and I will say why. At the Ministry of Labour stress was laid, and very rightly laid, in every Exchange on trying to extend placings through the Exchange. The result has been, I have not the least doubt that where an Exchange manager has come to hear of a vacancy being filled, even though not filled through the Exchange, he puts it down on his list as one for which the Exchange gets credit. I am not a person who brings attacks against administration, but I have known definite cases of that in my own knowledge, and, therefore, I say that 16 to 17 per cent. is on the high side, not on the low side.
How on earth are we going to test, in all the enormous numbers of fillings of
jobs that there are, whether a person—I am talking about the small percentage of work-shy at the bottom, who everybody admits exist and who everybody admits ought not to get benefit. How is the Exchange going to test, out of all the enormous number of placings that are made, if only one-sixth are made by the Exchanges? I would ask the House to mark that if it was an average of one in six, it would not be so bad, but it is not an average, it is much less than one in six in some districts and more than one in six in others, and it is much less than one in six in some occupations and more in others. How, under those circumstances, can that work so far as the Exchange is concerned?
Take the question of notification by the employer. Does this House honestly think that employers are really going to notify the Exchanges of every offer of a job or every vacancy that a man might have got with them but which he has not filled? Everybody, like the hon. Member for Nottingham, who has had practical knowledge of the working of the Exchanges knows that to-day the forms in which employers say that a man has left them without just cause do not get sent freely to the Exchange. The ordinary employer does not like to play the detective on workmen, and, therefore, voluntary notification by them cannot possibly be relied upon. I ask hon. Members to think for themselves, from the point of view of good administration, What is an employer really going to do? He is not going to get the reputation amongst the workmen who work there that he is always going to send a note to the Exchange about every vacancy and every person who might have applied for it and who has not done so. He will not risk his own good relations with his men in order to do that.
From that point of view, therefore, that test breaks down hopelessly, unless you make notification compulsory, and I venture to say to this House that you cannot make notification really compulsory and effective until in the end you make it compulsory for the Exchanges to fill the vacancies. What a situation we come to, just to try and make this Clause work! There is not a trade unionist nor a master in a great many of the ordinary trades who would think
for a moment that it would be tolerable that the present arrangements that are made between trade unions and employers for filling skilled vacancies with skilled men should be scrapped under a compulsory filling of vacancies by the Exchange. I was, as a Minister, for getting the Exchange to develop its placing work, but we all recognise, as the Minister now recognises, that you do it by persuading employers to do it, and you do it, except for some very highly specialised industries, probably more in unskilled than in skilled trades. If the Government were to try and make it compulsory that Exchanges should fill all skilled jobs in skilled trades which are now filled by arrangements between the unions and the masters, it is the trade unions even more than the employers, but both of them, who would cry out at such a change and who would have none of it. At the same time, that is the only way by which the first part of this plan can really in the end be made to work.
Let me take the second part. Written instructions are to be given by the Ministry, and
if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that a claimant has without good cause refused or failed to carry out any written directions given to him.
What are going to be those written instructions? Take a big firm of steelworks at Sheffield or at Newcastle, where there is h great deal of unemployment and some jobs are going. Is the Minister going to give written instructions to a man saying "They will be taking on men on such and such a day; they have blown a new blast furnace, or something of that kind; go and have to try"? Is he going to say, "Go and have a try"? to others, or would it be only in a specific case? I ask Members to think how it will pan out in practice. Again, how is it going to be proved? I have tried to get the Attorney-General's own object, to see that the good man gets it but that the work-shy does not. How will he prove in that case who is the good man and who is the work-shy? Hon. Members opposite were restive because I interrupted the Attorney-General. I wanted to be quite sure of what he said, and these are the actual words that I took down, which the Attorney-General used as his justification for this part of the Clause:
Benefits should go to any man who can show he is doing the best he can to obtain work.
But this part of the Clause is entirely incompatible with that. The Attorney- General wants it to go to the man who is showing that he is doing the best he can. In the trade union benefit regulations which an hon. Friend of mine read out that is what they all wanted too. They were there sitting, in a rough and ready way, as a committee knowing their men, having reasons for knowing what vacancies were going, not wanting their funds to be unduly depleted, but wanting their men to show that they were trying to get a job. The Attorney-General says that benefit should go to any man who can show he is doing the best he can to obtain work, but there is absolutely nothing of that in this Clause. The officer of the Ministry has to give written instructions, but one cannot tell how those instructions would work, whether for those generally looking for a vacancy, or for a specific case, and there is absolutely no guarantee than any man should be asked to show that he was doing the best he could to obtain work—none.
Judging by the Attorney-General's test, what is going to be the result? The result, so far as those people who know best can calculate, is shown in the White Paper, which was not in our hands until it was too late for us to consider it or to put down Amendments based upon it. It is all very well for the hon. Member for West Nottingham to say he does not care about the White Paper. I want to ask the Minister of Labour if she does not trust the White Paper. What is important is to know what the Minister of Labour trusts. Does she trust the White Paper or does she not? At least it is the most authoritative expression of what may be likely to happen, and I ask the House to realise just these cases. I do not want to labour it all, but the whole of it goes to make exactly the same kind of contentions that I have been making. Let them take paragraphs 8 and 9 of the White Paper, which have already been quoted:
The possibility should, however, not be overlooked that the new provision may have the effect of bringing certain other persons into benefit, for example, married women who have done little or no work since marriage and seasonal workers during the 'off-season.'
9. These two classes of cases will serve as illustrations of what in the aggregate may amount to a considerable group of new claimants, consisting of persons who, so to speak, are not really in the market as competitors for employment, but may bold themselves out as such if they are thereby enabled to qualify for benefit.
8.0 p.m.
I put it to any trade unionist here that, if he were asked to give his opinion of that, if it affected the question of his own trade union funds used for benefit, he would not want to have people getting on the funds who were as little qualified as that; and I ask the Minister of Labour to say whether she really stands by that or whether she does not. If she does, it is the most amazing condemnation of her own Clause, and if she does not, we are entitled to ask her what will be the effect. Earlier this afternoon I was pressing to have the chance to examine the Clause. If she takes this judgment of the White Paper on the Clause, it stands condemned root and branch. If she does not take it, why does she bring forward this Clause until she can tell us the effect, when the case which can be made against it is so overwhelmingly strong? That is the first point I ask her.
In the second place I want her to tell us simply and clearly what is the real difference between this Clause and the Clause she withdrew a week ago. If she has really changed her mind I would pay great respect to that, because she has had a great deal of experience. I do not pay so much respect to the Attorney-General's change of mind. It has become a habit. In both cases the onus of proof has been laid on the exchange, and therefore the former objection about its being a subjective test and the rest of it—there was a good deal of misunderstanding even about that—goes by the board. The only change, if any, is, I gather, that any real initiative is as a matter of fact taken off the man, as I have endeavoured to explain. Lastly, I want her to tell us in detail how it, will work. We have an official statement brought forward on the authority of the Minister herself which—hardly a man in this House or out of it would deny it—completely condemns the Clause.
It is for these reasons that I ask the House to condemn the Clause—that we have not as yet had a single real explanation, of the difference between this
Clause and the previous one; that there is a difference, I believe, as shown by the White Paper, the Minister has not convinced us about it; and that it is now common property, at least it has been stated in the Press, that the attempt to get Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the old Clause withdrawn was not a real attack upon the Government but one which the Members who made it were prepared to withdraw. [An HON. MEMBER "Where did you get that from?"] It is quite clear from the statement made by the Minister and the Attorney-General that they did not want to have them withdrawn; and, therefore, we are now to have fastened upon this country a change in administration which is due to nothing else than a collapse before a sham attack. Finally I want to condemn this Clause because it takes away all initiative such as the trade unions themselves say is right. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me be quite clear again. I say straight away that 93, 94 or 95 per cent or more of those who are unemployed are eager and anxious to get work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why all this labouring?"] Because, by the Attorney-General's own statement, the object is that the genuine shall get benefit but not the work-shy. What we want to see is how the right hon. Lady actually carries out that test; because nothing which has been said in the Debate to-day gives us any shadow of justification for supposing that the Clause will do it.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: After the speech from the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Labour in the last Government it is worth while to go back to the first speech which was made from his side of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). From the start he clearly made a deliberate onslaught on what he called "the diligence test," which was the basis of the Government's Bill as originally drafted. We had it laid down from the first, because I presume he spoke with authority, that hon. Members above the Gangway were going to object to the application of the diligence test. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) has said with commendable frankness that he objected to the old system of the psychological test,
that he got tired of it, saw its flaws. When we have two authoritative speakers condemning, first, the existing psychological test, and then the diligence test which it was proposed to substitute for it, one is compelled to ask what in Heaven's name they really do want? It you get away from the present basis and from the one the Government proposed to substitute for it, what is there left but some kind of objective test such as is laid down in the new Clause? It is not a very worthy attitude to take up, to be ready to condemn the diligence test as long as it is the official policy of the Government and then, when the Government have sought for something better in deference to the collective wisdom of the House, to take up another attitude; because, so far as I can gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he is trying to get back to something which would be indistinguishable from the diligence test. Whether a thing is right or wrong seems to be a question of whether the Government are supporting it or not. We ought not to judge important matters like this, which will affect the lives of so many hundreds of thousands of people, in that narrow spirit.
I would not for a minute say that the test laid down here is perfect. It is not perfect, for the simple reason that it passes the wit of man to provide a form of words which is going to be equally well applicable to all parts of the country and to all kinds of trades. This particular form of words, which is far the best that we have yet seen, is very well applicable, in my view, to my own people. It may be said that is why I am supporting it. Why not? I owe a duty to my constituency before anything else. But I quite realise that the position may be different if one goes to some country districts. I say frankly that some of my hon. Friends in my own party do not take the same view as I do and I quite understand why. When we are considering entirely different conditions we shall not find this Clause apply so well to all of them. If one takes London, where the variety of jobs offered is very much greater, and where, the actual volume of unemployment is not so large, this Clause will not fit the case there so well as it does in the distressed areas. In some way one has to make a choice of evils. We cannot please every-
one; we cannot make a geographical discrimination and say we will apply one test in one place and another in another, because we should never be able to draw the border-line. If one has to choose, as conscientiously as one can, a formula which one knows is not going to he equally satisfactory everywhere, is it not right and just and reasonable to consider first the areas where unemployment is worst? I believe that is what is being done—to have the test which can be applied best in those areas where the task of the Employment Exchanges is greatest, to try to cure the evil where the evil is greatest.
The great evil is not the risk of letting through the work-shy. I am not accusing members of the Conservative party of any callousness towards the genuine unemployed, but in their speeches they tend to emphasise the one thing rather than the other, showing that at the moment it is hulking larger in their minds than anything else. The thing that bulks largest in my mind all the time is the fact that we are dealing with a set of circumstances in which we find many more men applying for jobs than there are jobs to be done. Until the Lord Privy Seal or somebody else can put that right someone is going to be unemployed, a large number of people are going to be unemployed, and those people are prima facie entitled to benefit. There is no reason why they should not get it.
I welcome the new words which have been brought forward, though in the full knowledge that, after experience has tested them it may be found that some alteration will again have to be made. We have not reached finality; I do not see how anybody can reach finality except by the process of elimination, I myself have some doubts about this procedure of written directions. I admit it is something which I myself have suggested from time to time, but it might in some circumstances be used as an instrument of persecution. A badly organised Employment Exchange, performing its duties perfunctorily, might use this system to make people tramp up and down and do unnecessary things, but nothing one can devise is going to be fool-proof, and we have to do our best to see how we can make the words as little oppressive as possible. The words have this advantage, I think, that if any mal-
administration were to occur in any particular Exchange it, could be checked. It would be possible to discover what instructions were being given at that Exchange, and the Minister would find out what was going on and would be able to stop any abuse. At the present moment the method is so vague that there are no means of checking whether what we have called administrative persecution is actually going on or not.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member opposite who disclaimed any intention of attacking the officials of the Employment Exchanges. I, too, would disclaim it and with the greatest emphasis with regard to the Employment Exchanges I know, but at the same time I should be blind if I had not seen and I should be dishonest if I did not say that there is a great deal of discontent between the unemployed on the one hand and the Employment Exchange officials on the other. To my mind that is not due to the fault alone of one or the other; it is due to the wrong atmosphere and the false situation which is created when an unemployed man who has for so long been worried by the bitter problem of poverty comes face to face with his accuser, with the man who is going to ask, "What were doing last week?" It is not the fault of the Employment Exchanges, but there is an atmosphere, in which the man himself may be said to be in fault in that he goes to the exchange very ready to take offence, and to take offence under circumstances which would make any one of us feel exactly the same as he does.
What is being done by this new Clause—and I think this is its greatest benefit—is that it is taking the Employment Exchanges off the old barren task of trying to find out what work was available last week and the week before with a view to showing that the man had not been looking for it, and then disqualify him. Instead of that, Employment Exchanges ought to go on with their original task of finding out what work there is now. I do not in the least mind if the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Labour is right in saying there are only a certain number of jobs which are known and could be notified. I do not mind if he is right in saying that compulsory notification all round is impossible. What I do say is that we
are taking a step in the right direction in turning the Employment Exchanges toward their proper and original function. That is one of the greatest benefits of this Clause. We know that in the old days we had no such thing as a not-genuinely-seeking work Clause at all. The key to the situation lay in other hands than those of the Minister of Labour, and it depended upon the efforts of those who were looking for work. The only solution is finding constructive work for these men. When that is done, the whole problem will disappear like smoke. I am aware that we have to deal with the situation as we find it to-day, and I appeal to the Government not to worry about having changed their minds on this question. I think that the Government have now given us a form of words which will be a great advance on anything that we have had before.

Mr. STRACHEY: I rise to say a few words on the subject of the so-called shirker, who, in my opinion, is largely a mythical figure. I want to consider the question whether this Clause really does disqualify certain people who may be characterised by the word "shirker." The only objection which has been raised to this Clause by hon. Members opposite is that it does not deal with the shirker. I want to know what happens if the shirker is disqualified. One or two things must happen. Either the shirker applies for maintenance to the guardians or he finds work. I will consider for a moment those two alternatives. If the shirker applies to the guardians all that happens is that the maintenance of the man is transferred from national to local funds. Surely, we are not going to be told by the great de-rating party that that is an advantage. As a matter of fact, it is really a great disadvantage to everybody to put a charge of that kind on the rates, which is admittedly the worst form of taxation.
Now I come to the other alternative. Suppose that the shirker finds work, does that do anything to help to solve the unemployment problem? As a matter of fact, we have done nothing of the sort, because, when the so-called shirker gets a job, he is disqualified from receiving benefit, and all that has happened is that some man who has been genuinely seeking work does not get work. What has
happened is that your shirker, or work-shy person, has been forced into a job at good wages. In this way, the shirker finds employment, and the honest workman is compelled to spend a miserable existence upon unemployment benefit. Once you have established the principle of maintenance, it will be no use transferring one man from one place to another, because there can be no net increase in employment. This category known as the shirker is a false category. We are all potential shirkers and potentional work-seeking men. It depends upon the system and our physical and mental efficiency.
I welcome this Clause because it will give the Employment Exchanges the opportunity of telling in the way that they have never been able to tell before when a man becomes, not what I would call a shirker, but when he has sunk physically and mentally into a state in which he is not fit for employment. Under this Clause, it will be the duty of the officials of the Employment Exchanges to send out written instructions to the unemployed to go to certain places, and apply for a certa4in kind of employment. If they send out those instructions repeatedly, and a man goes to a job and is repeatedly refused, it may be that that man has some physical and mental defect and finds himself sinking into a condition in which he is becoming unemployable. It will then he the duty of the Ministry of Labour not to strike that man off the list, but to investigate his case in order to see whether some system of training or rehabilitation of that man mentally and physically can be applied, in his case. We ought to read this Clause in connection with the other Clauses in the Bill which extend and expand that system of rehabilitation. I believe this Clause will lead us forward to a more orderly system of work-finding.
We find in the White Paper that has been issued by the Ministry of Labour the admission that under this Clause there would be a great rise in the number of vacancies notified by the employers. I take it that will be so, because it will be more necessary for the employers to find their labour at the Employment Exchanges, and they will go there more naturally. That will he an enormous gain, and it will provide an organised intelligence system of work instead of the disorganised system which we have
at the present time. It will put an end to that ceaseless tramping of workmen from colliery to colliery, and we shall replace that state of things by a system in which there is a centre accessible by telephone from which there will be communication with the employers. It will be a system under which each man's qualifications are known, and that will constitute a far more intelligent system of work-finding. I do not know how rapidly we can go on with the expansion of that system. The Secretary of State for War has spoken about compulsory notification. There is a difference of opinion in all quarters of the House as to whether that s immediately practicable or not. I am sure it is not practicable unless it is done in close co-operation with our trade unions—unless they are brought into that system of notification. But, however we are to work, we must replace the disordered, wasteful, uncivilised method of work-finding by an organised method, and I believe that this Clause represents a very long step in that direction. That is why we on these benches welcome it so strongly.

Mr. ALLEN: As I find myself in the unenviable position of not altogether being able to support my party on this Clause, I should like to say a few words of explanation. The constituency of West Belfast, which I represent, has one of the highest averages of unemployment in the United Kingdom. A large number of workers are employed in the linen industry, many sections of which are in a state of virtual collapse, the reasons for which are beyond the control of either workers or employers, but rest upon the fiscal and financial system of this country. The streets of West Belfast are crowded with people who are not only out of work, but have not the slightest chance of getting work unless they emigrate or go over to Clydeside, where there is already a big unemployed population. The tendency to emigration is, in my opinion, far too much developed over there.
Among these unemployed people there is a large number who come to me from time to time with papers marked "Not genuinely seeking work." I am in the fortunate position over there of also being a local employer of labour. I employ a substantial amount of casual labour. Very often I take on men for two or
three weeks at a time. I have sent large numbers of men to the manager in Belfast. Whenever a man comes to me with his papers marked "Not genuinely seeking work," I give him that test. I cannot count the number of cases, but I think it is well over 30 now, and in every case the man has reported next morning at the offices. In 17 cases, to be exact, we have been able to give these men temporary work ranging from a week to five or six weeks, and in three cases we found the men so goad that we kept them on permanently, while one man, I am glad to say, was sent to a better job in Glasgow, and is a thoroughly satisfactory man. That is a personal experience, but I feel that it indicates that there is a large number of men who get turned down as not genuinely seeking work when they are only too anxious to work. Probably that condition becomes very strongly developed in a constituency like West Belfast, where there is literally no alternative work for men who are thrown out of employment in the linen industry. I feel that the whole tendency of legislation in this country—for which the party opposite is equally responsible with other parties—has been to legislate against the majority in order to catch the minority. We have an example of that on a very large scale in the United States of America, where the whole population has been made to go "dry" in order to stop a few people from getting drunk.

Viscountess ASTOR: Nonsense!

Mr. ALLEN: I do not think it is fair to run the risk of doing injustice to men who are conscientiously seeking work by discrediting them and increasing their despair. They are in a rotten position to begin with, and it is only, metaphorically speaking, giving them a kick—it is an insult in a way—to tell them that they are not genuinely seeking work. You insult a large collection of men who are anxious to work in order to penalise the minority who are deliberate shirkers—and there are deliberate shirkers in every class. I feel that, not only in this Bill but in all legislation, we can with advantage adopt the principle of trusting the majority rather than legislating to penalise the minority.

Miss BONDFIELD: I should like to take this opportunity of dealing with
some of the points that have been raised in the Debate, because, frankly, I am rather hopeful that we might manage to get on with our business. Without any desire to closure discussion, I intervene now because there are certain points which I feel must be dealt with by myself, notably the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), whom I am sorry not to see in his place just now.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: He will be back in a few moments.

Miss BONDFIELD: Then I will not deal with them at the moment, but will go on to one or two other criticisms. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) wanted a definite statement from me with regard to what he called the dangers of the White Paper. It is obvious that, if you are asking for a statistical basis for such questions as arise under the Clause which we are now discussing, it is quite impossible to obtain it. The Actuary has been perfectly clear, the White Paper itself is perfectly clear, in pointing out to the House where guess-work must be resorted to, because there are no data, where the figures are supposititious figures, based upon the best that is possible in the matter of relative considerations that may or may not eventuate.
For example, I have deliberately chosen to make the form of this White Paper such that it raises every possible point that may be raised with regard to possible dangers to the finances of the fund. We point out to the House that it is manifestly difficult to make any definite forecast of the financial effect of these changes, and obviously, if I had come to this House with a cut-and-dried set of figures showing that the results of this Clause would be so many persons on the register, that they would be on benefit for so many weeks, and that that would mean a total sum of so much, the House would have had a perfect right to turn round and tell me that I was cooking the figures. As a matter of fact, I resent very strongly the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth—and when he comes in I will repeat this—in which he made the imputation that the figures in relation
to the number of vacancies filled were cooked figures. I will come back to that point presently. I have tried to the best of my ability to take, shall I say, the blackest side of this subject, and to point out that, in spite of that, notwithstanding all that we have put in with regard to the uncertainty of the position, it leaves me with a balancing point, at most, of 1,160,000. My first estimate gave a balancing point of 1,200,000. This Paper shows that, with the increases involved in the changes, I am left with a balancing point of 1,160,000 on the yearly average number of persons on the register, as compared with 1,000,000 which was the position of the fund when I came into office.
The White Paper takes no account of what I may call the credit side of the account. I was very glad indeed when hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate emphasised the obligation which is now placed upon the Exchange in a stronger manner than ever before—the obligation of work-finding, the obligation of developing that side of the subject. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) was under the mistaken impression that the changes in administration would involve an increase in the administrative staff. On the contrary, the simplification of the administration involved by the new procedure will release a large number of persons who can be turned on to the work-finding side of the machinery. I want to say straight away that, while it is perfectly true that the change which has taken place in the Clause is a change which does wipe out the second part of Clause 4 which was in my original Bill, and to that extent widens the improvement made by the Clause, nevertheless I can say myself, and I am certain that I can say for the whole of my officers, that we are going whole-heartedly to accept the decision of the House and put our backs into developing the work-finding side of the Exchange machinery.
I believe that, strengthened as we are by the Debates which have taken place in this House, and strengthened as we shall be, I hope, by every Member of Parliament in an industrial constituency putting his whole weight behind our endeavours to build up a committee of employers and workpeople in each district, we shall be enabled to tackle the bad end
of the problem, and decide at what point a man should be required to go into training to fit himself to get back into industry, at what point he shall be required to seek work in another district, and so on. I hope for the co-operation, not only of the organised workers and employers, but also of Members who represent industrial constituencies, in that work. In addition to that, there is the point raised by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Price), who asked me to define the meaning of paragraph (c). That is part of the definition of the kind of employment which a claimant is not expected to take, and it is put in for the protection of the claimant. It has worked very well. In the various Acts of Parliament it has remained practically unchanged, except in those matters of drafting which are necessitated by the changes in those Acts, and I do not think we could really improve upon it. The grievance he referred to is one that belongs to the category of trade union action.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth began his speech with the suggestion that the figures were not regarded by him as altogether reliable. He is the last person in the world who should have made a reference of that kind, because he must know that there is not a shadow of foundation for the suggestion that the figures of work-placing done by the Exchanges take credit for anything that they themselves have not done. That is a perfectly unjustifiable statement.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not know if the right hon. Lady heard me. I spoke of only one or two instances. I was not dealing with a large part of the figures, but only with the total of 17 per cent. or thereabouts which it was claimed was the full statement of what they were doing. That was all.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am very happy to be able to inform the right hon. Gentleman that, so far from it being a full statement, it is an under-statement. Since the change of Government, we have been turning our attention to the question and we have a marked increase in work-placing. As far as the last returns show, we are getting nearer to 23 per cent. rather than 17 per cent. I hope that upward rise will be maintained
by the efforts to which I have referred, and that we shall be able to make very rapid progress in that direction. The right hon. Gentleman also asked if I trusted the White Paper, and he said it was a judgment. The White Paper is not a judgment. It puts before the House the possibilities of certain deductions that are made as to possible things that may happen under the Bill. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that a statement of this kind cannot statistically be based upon what is generally known as an actuarial foundation. There are no data for an actuarial estimate of that kind. The Government actuary has stated quite definitely that he is satisfied that all the ground has been explored that it is possible to explore in arriving at these figures. Further than that it is not possible to ask us to go, because further information does not, in fact, exist.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am the last to say that anyone could calculate the exact effect of the Clause, produced as it is, but the most probable result is that given in the White Paper, and that is the most that the actuary claims for it. All I asked the Minister was whether she will agree that that is the most likely result as far as it is possible to interpret the future.

Miss BONDFIELD: I do not say that this is necessarily the most likely result, but it is a probable result. There are other factors which have no place in the White Paper, such as work-finding, improvement in trade and a hundred and one other factors which will probably come in and may vitiate these figures, and we shall find that even my calculations are at fault. But, assuming that the figures are worse than the White Paper shows, is that any reason for not going forward l The position of these unfortunate people is such that we must go forward. I do not for a minute believe the country is down and out. I do not accept that pessimistic view. I believe that, if we organise and cooperate together, the country is going to have a better economic future than it has ever had. But let us assume that all the pessimists are right, we still have to look at these transitional people, and I may have to come back at the end of 12 months and make some suggestions as to where the money
is to come from. It has to come from somewhere. In this White Paper we suggest that for this 12 months it is coming direct from the Treasury in so far as the transitional people are concerned. If this method proves to be a good workable scheme, we can come back for powers to extend it. If we can find a better scheme in the 12 months, a better allocation of the burden on this, that or the other fund, always bearing in mind the importance of national responsibility in the matter, I shall most gladly come back to the House and ask their consent. Meantime I ask that we may have this new Clause.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I want to make one or two personal observations. My name has been mentioned twice during the Debate because of a speech I made on Thursday last, and I wish to repeat some of the statements I made on that occasion. The first is that the old conditions set out by the present Minister of War in the 1924 Act regarding genuinely seeking work were not by any means satisfactory to the men who were genuinely seeking work, and certainly not to the employers of labour who had to deal with the men when they came round to carry out the conditions that he himself laid down that "genuinely" meant continuously seeking work, therefore compelling these men to go round from workshop to workshop getting signatures to papers from foremen or proprietors of businesses to prove that they were continuously seeking work. I think there is general agreement on all sides of the House that the conditions laid down by the 1924 Act have not worked well, either for the men seeking work or for the employer of labour. If we made a canvass of employers of labour throughout the country, we should find that all of them would say that they wish to be rid of these Regulations, because of the nuisance of having men come along when there is no chance of giving them jobs and having to sign papers on their behalf.
When I spoke on the last occasion, I produced hill-heads, which I still have in my pocket, in proof of that statement. I said during the course of that speech that I was not certain in my mind that the Clause as then drafted and presented to the House was going to be the right
one to do away with the condition, which I considered was a bad one, under the old system of genuinely seeking work. I said I was not going to condemn it until I had heard what the Attorney-General had to say, because he was the legal mind responsible for the drafting of the Clause, and would be able to explain it to us. I listened very carefully to the speech of the Attorney-General later, and he convinced me that the original Clause he had drafted did take away the difficulty created in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) in 1924. Therefore, he was meeting my objection. But pressure was brought to bear upon him from other parts of the House, and he finally withdrew that Clause, and he has redrafted and presented to the House the Clause we are now discussing. I have looked through this Clause very carefully and if it is going to carry out the conditions in regard to whether a man is really wanting work or not, in the way I think it is, it might be possible for us to accept it as a reasonable compromise between the various opinions in the House. I want to be quite sure about the matter. The right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour spoke before I had an opportunity of putting certain matters before her.
In my constituency we have a goodly number of casual workmen on the docks, and I am very much concerned about this class of worker, because it is in regard to this class of worker that we have had a good deal of difficulty in regard to the question of genuinely seeking work. I want to know if the intimation which is to be given from the Employment Exchange to that type of worker is to be an intimation of the kind I have in mind. There are certain times fixed in the morning when men are set to work on particular ships unloading, and so on. The present system is that the men go down to the Exchange on the docks. I am glad to say that the Employment Exchange people have shown that they really have some consideration for the workmen. The man who fails to secure a job goes to an office at the setting-on place and signs on to the effect that he has not received a job. He is supposed to go down later in the day, if there are other ships to be unloaded, and apply again. I want to know if under this Clause, as now drafted, the
notification to the man that ships are going to be at the docks at a certain time, and the fact that he fails to apply, even if only 20 men are wanted and 200 men turn up, will be a disqualification from receiving benefit. If it is, it is going to set up a reasonable test as to whether a man is genuinely seeking work or not. If a man is willing to turn up at five o'clock in the morning and come back at ten o'clock, and probably come back again at noon, I say he is genuinely seeking work. If that is going to be the system of notification, I think we can say that, as far as casual labour at the docks is concerned, a reasonable test is provided in this Clause.
I must confess, however, that on reading the White Paper, I was a little disturbed in my mind and somewhat startled, if, as is stated here, certain things are going to happen if the Clause comes into effect. If I had tried, or if any other hon. Member had tried to make out a case against any class, or if it had been a question of officials being re-instated to put up a case against the representations made by trade unions last week, the Attorney-General could not have had a more complete case against this Clause than is contained in the White Paper. I regard the matter in this light. We are told that it is really only to be a test for 12 months. I am absolutely satisfied that the only way you can deal with the problem of the man who is out of work for a long period is by a system of co-ordination between the new Public Assistance Committees and the Employment Exchanges. The majority of these Public Assistance Committees will be in a position, owing to the fact that they are to be directly under the local authority, to give work to men on two or three days a week in the same way as test work is given at the present time, but it will be better work than the ordinary test work which is given to-day. In my constituency, for instance, we have a slab-making plant, and the men who have been on Poor Law relief for a considerable time and are regarded as being able to do some work, are requested to do work on that particular job. That is a test as to whether they really want work or not. If a man says he will not do it, surely it can be taken as a test that he is not genuinely seeking work.

Mr. McSHANE: Is the hon. Gentleman quite definitely in favour of the re-establishment of test work?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am glad I have had that interruption, because it gives me an opportunity of dealing with a point to which I wanted to refer. I am not in favour of a certain type of test work which is useless. There is nothing which destroys the moral of men more than telling them to dig a hole and then to him it up again. If they are doing a job which is a proper job and receiving a proper scale of wages, it is proper test work. [Interruption]. Hon. Members opposite misunderstand what I am trying to point out. We put the men on to useful work, making something which we can use in the locality for paving the streets. Although this can be termed test work, it is not the same kind of test work which exists in many other parts of the country. I am trying to point out that if you insist upon the offer of a job—I want hon. Members opposite to bear this in mind very closely—as the test as to whether a man is genuinely seeking work or not, you are opening a very wide door towards the establishment of test work all over the country. You cannot have it otherwise. We know at the moment that it is not possible to offer a job to every man who is on the Employment Exchange register unless it is something in the nature of a test job as to whether he is genuinely seeking work or not. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, to whom I have listened on many occasions when speaking on the problem of the unemployed man, has frequently spoken common sense to this House. One of the soundest pieces of common sense tie has uttered is that you should insist upon men, the young men in particular, doing some useful work for the money they receive. I put it to the House that if you lay down that principle as a condition, you are bound to have test work come in somewhere or other.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): Not test work in the sense that it is understood in the Poor Law, surely?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I am advocating that sort of thing to-night. I am pointing out what I think is a good point, namely, that if you are going to say that the test shall be the offer of a
job, you are opening the door wide for test work to be put into operation. We have heard a good deal about the shirkers. I said last week that I did not wish to defend the shirkers. There are some shirkers and there is no denying the fact. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health, that, in his opinion, 95 per cent. of the men are genuinely seeking work. I am satisfied of this, that although over 95 per cent, of the men ought not to be penalised because of conditions laid down by this House, and not knowing exactly how the conditions in the Measure of 1924 are going to work out in practice, we must see to it that that 95 per cent. who are genuinely seeking work are not thrust upon the Poor Law.
Whether this Clause will work out as satisfactory as hon. Members opposite hope, is a matter of conjecture. I should have been satisfied with the original Clause if the Attorney-General had stood to his guns, after making his explanation fast week. We should then have been in a position to go to the country and to say: "We have taken away a very objectionable section of the 1924 Act. We want to try this new Clause, which has been drafted by a Labour Government, with the fixed idea of taking away the objectionable part of the old condition. Let it have a fair run for 12 months, and if it does not work satisfactorily, the House of Commons can amend it." Who is to say that this new Clause will work satisfactorily, and who is to say how it will be interpreted by the officials? While we must protect the man who is genuinely seeking work, to make it easy for others to slip through the mesh, is a mistake. I should have welcomed and would have voted for the Clause as originally drafted, after the explanation of the Attorney-General, but, I am not satisfied that the new Clause will meet the position which I want to meet, and I doubt whether I can vote for it.

Mr. DUKES: The assumption has been that the recasting of this Clause will completely change the circumstances relating to workmen obtaining employment. That has been the general trend of the discussion. Hon. Members have talked about the work-shy. If any hon. Member were asked to give evidence as to that condition in his own constituency, he would immediately back down from his
statement. A man has to be an habitual worker before he becomes entitled to come within the fund. He must have proved his genuineness as a workman before he can become insured under the Act. The remodelling of this Clause is due to the failure to find a real test of whether a man is or is not genuinely desirous of obtaining employment, and Parliament has proceeded by the method of trial and error. We do not say that this Clause is absolutely perfect, any more than any other Act of Parliament covered every possible contingency that might ever arise. We have had five years' experience of an Act of Parliament which people thought was a test of not genuinely seeking work. If anyone is to be held responsible for the difficulties which have arisen in the working of that Act it is the Members on the opposite side of the House, because they created a psychology under which the unemployed workman was suspect. A statement has been made in this Debate that the recasting of this Clause may bring 90,000 new people on to the Fund. I am not arguing as to the accuracy of that statement, but the implication is that there are 90,000 people precluded from benefit who have a right to receive those benefits. That is the common sense deduction, and no hon. Member has the right to presume that there are 90,000 work-shys in this country.
9.0 p.m.
I do not believe that the recasting of this Clause will in any way interfere with the ordinary practice whereby employers of labour recruit their labour supply. It is nothing more or less than a new test as to the entitlement for benefit on behalf of those men who have cause to make a claim upon a Fund to which they are contributors. Much has been said as to whether test work should be suggested. Obviously, at any time almost any exchange in the country has a sufficient number of jobs to offer the man who may be suspect. The difficulty arises not from any lack of inclination on the part of the man to accept a job, but because of the fact that for years the man, genuinely desirous of work has not been able to find employment. No matter what effort they may have made or what effort may have been made on their behalf by the Exchange, there is a residue of men who never come within the ambit
of selection so far as employment of labour is concerned. Hon Members may call them work-shy if they like, but I am not prepared to permit that title to be applied to men who have been unemployed for years, through no fault of their own, and who may be offered a form of employment which they are physically unfit to carry out. I am not prepared to stand for any form of regulation which dubs that man as work-shy.
I would rather suggest, as in this Clause, the development of a form of machinery which will give to that man the opportunity of having his sincerity to find suitable work tested by men within his own locality, men who know and understand both the employers and the labour representatives, who understand the man's capacity, who know the jobs in the locality that may be offered to him. Not until a test of that kind has been offered and a Committee of that time has pronounced the man undesirable, would it be permissible for any hon. Member to dub any section of the community as work-shy, to make an effort to prevent the modification of an Act which has been a failure and to prevent any effort being made to alter that Act in the interests of the recipients of unemployment benefit.

Mr. GRAY: I want to make one or two points perfectly clear. I congratulate the Minister of Labour and the Attorney-General on producing this Clause in place of the one which raised so much discussion on the Committee stage. The first thing I want to make quite clear is that this House in accepting it is not for a moment taking away the moral obligation which rests on every man who is out of work to do everything he can to get work. I have heard one or two hon. Members suggest that this Clause relieves him from that moral obligation. If I thought that was so I would not support it for a moment. The old provision which was so unsatisfactory, the genuinely seeking work provision, did not disqualify a man because he was not genuinely seeking work but because he was unable to persuade a committee that he was not genuinely seeking work, and, allowing all sincerity to that committee, the real point was that many a man was debarred by a lack of ability to put his case, not because he had not genuinely sought work. Our objection to the old provision
was that although the workshys are exceedingly few in number, every Employment Exchange committee and every manager know that there were a few people who tried to prey on the fund, but they were the exception not the rule. They were not caught. That is the real point. They knew the ropes and got through. Under this proposal we ought to be able very effectively to add to that elimination.
Let me say one word on the financial side of the proposal. I realise how important that is, and I want to put to hon. Members who have stressed the matter that the argument on the financial side, if you are going to push it to its logical conclusion, would be to change the rate of benefit and not exclude individuals who are entitled to benefit. On the financial side we have to accept the position that if men are out of work and qualified for benefit they should not be excluded by a test. To my mind the great hope of this Measure is that it does not tie any fixed condition to any area, and Employments Exchange officials should be able to build up a system suitable to each area, whatever the conditions may be, a system by which out of work men can try to obtain work and by so doing fulfil the only test which can reasonably be applied for receiving benefit under the conditions of this Bill. I congratulate the Minister and the Attorney-General on having devised certainly the most satisfactory form of words I have seen to deal with this very difficult and complicated problem.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: This is the first time I have, dared to intervene in a debate on the -Unemployment Insurance Bill. I have refrained from doing so because I represent an agricultural constituency, and agriculture is not within the province of the Bill. Therefore I thought it right to leave the Debate to those who represent industrial areas, and who know the circumstances of those areas far better than I do. But a worm will turn. [Interruption.] In this case the poor down-trodden agricultural worm has turned, and I rise in my place to protest in the most emphatic manlier against this Clause of the Bill. During the last two or three weeks we have passed Measures in this House adding £20,000,000, £30,000,000, £40,000,000, or more, a year to the national burden, and
it is when I realise that one-tenth of this sum if spent on our great agricultural industry would save it from destruction that the agricultural worm turns and revolts against the expenditure. We are now passing a. Clause which will cost something like £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year—far more than is necessary to help the agricultural industry. For what purpose? It is for the purpose of giving the ability to many unproductive workers of the country to live in idleness on the fruits of the work of their fellows.
Where is this policy going to lead? Who is going to pay the bill? We had an excellent speech on the Financial Resolution from the right hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), who proved that this was a tax on productive industry which the producers and workers of the country would have to pay. We all know the unfortunate position of productive industry in this country. How can British industries in the future compete with those countries who have put their social services on a saner method than our own? Where is this leading to? We are taxing the efficient to pay for the non-efficient. We are placing a tax upon efficiency and penalising the efficient, for the good of the ineffective. We are removing from our people a stimulus which would make the men of the country do their best. It will be a bad thing for this country when men cease to have a stimulus to do their best. There are many more workers than non-workers in this country, and I think that the workers of the country will revolt against the proposals of this Bill. I appeal to the Government to give the same consideration to the workers, who are an asset to the country, as they are to the non-workers, who are a liability; and will consider the position of those workers who are taxed in order to pay for the maintenance of these great social services.

Mr. SEXTON: I do not propose to delay the House, because I am an anxious as anyone to get on with the business of the Bill. I understand that reference has been made by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) to the position of the casual labourer, and as to how the new Clause will affect him. I hasten to reassure the hon. Member that if anything the position of the casual labourer
will be improved by the alteration. On the whole, and except in a few cases owing to interpretation rathen than the spirit of the old Clause, his position is not materially affected, because from the inception of unemployment insurance the casual labourer was never considered to come within its provisions. In the old days insurance was confined to two or three scheduled trades. Later it was extended, and the casual labourer was brought in. But it never fitted him owing to the fact that its provisions were originally based on permanent employment. Consequently, by agreement with the employers and the Minister of Labour, we found it necessary to create special machinery to deal with the casual labourer. But even then in some cases, though the casual applied twice a day for a job, sometimes even more, and reported the fact to the Dock Employment Exchange, he was nevertheless disqualified because he did not secure employment within a given period as not genuinely seeking work, and in some cases was ordered to go to places away from his ordinary employment where it was known there was already a surplus. The interpretation of "genuinely seeking work" did not affect them. During 1924 this was not the case, but by the tightening up of restrictions and new regulations of 1926 he was in some measure at least subject to the new regulations for the reasons I have stated. This Clause does away entirely with that complaint. Let me say frankly that, on the whole, there is not a great deal to complain of, and that the casual labourer at the docks gets a fairly good look in as far as benefits go. Therefore, I reassure the hon. Member for Grimsby that there is not the slightest danger, but on the contrary a decided advantage to the casual labourer under this Clause, which, if anything, will enhance his position rather than otherwise.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: Those who listened to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) must have felt, as I did, that he of all speakers had clarified the situation. Those who listened to the learned Attorney-General when he was giving out the smooth sentences and paragraphs that we all like to hear must have realised that what was going on was merely camouflage. We know perfectly well that when this Clause was first brought forward there was a vital
difference of opinion between the two sections of the party opposite, and that this Clause is not a mere Amendment, not an ordinary substitution, but is a complete volte face on the part of the Government because of the pressure exercised from below the Gangway opposite. I confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view of those who must feel like proud fathers when they hear the recantations of their adopted children on the Front Bench opposite.
As has been emphasised more than once, there are two diametrically different points of view regarding this problem. There is one on which we are all agreed—the question of genuinely seeking work. We admit that the intention is that the person genuinely seeking work should get the benefit of the Act. We also agree that those who are genuinely not seeking work should be ruled out. It has been proved by experience, and it is admitted, that there are certain cases in which those genuinely seeking work have for one reason or another been ruled out. In the anxiety that they should be kept in, it seems to many of us that not only are we going to include those who are genuinely seeking work but are going a long way potentially to include those who are genuinely not seeking work, however few they may be.
It is a very menacing situation for this House. But that does not touch the question that those hon. Members opposite who have managed to get their own way have begun entirely to alter this Bill, which is, after all, an Unemployment Insurance Bill. We can quite understand that there are many who have pinned their colours to the mast under the slogan of "Work or Maintenance." But "Work or Maintenance" has nothing in common with Unemployment Insurance Acts. Our difficulty is that the advocates of "Work or Maintenance" have so had their way that we have now got to the position that the Government in this Bill have, without admitting it, made it the first instalment of "Work or Maintenance."

Mr. DUNCAN: Why not?

Major DAVIES: Because they are two entirely different things.

Mr. DUNCAN: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what was done with the German prisoners when they
were detained in this country? Are working men to be worse off than German prisoners?

Major DAVIES: If it were in order I could discuss German prisoners or Timbuctoo smallholders, but that would not be germane to the subject before the House. "Work or Maintenance" and Unemployment Insurance are two entirely different things. In the last two days the "Times" has had two extraordinarily interesting articles giving, not opinions, but facts on the unemployment problem. They point out, as has been known very well, that there is d certain hard core, confined very largely to what we call the black squad, whose prospects of getting employment, whether in their own occupation or in any other, are bad. That by itself constitutes a problem with which possibly this House will be called upon to deal. But what I want to point out is that if we are going to try to combine that problem with the question of Unemployment Insurance, then we are going to fall between two stools. That is why I think it is a menace to the workers of the country that there should have been this successful internecine warfare between one section and another of the party opposite. They are purportrating and endeavour to mix oil and water, which will not mix.
I am unable sometimes to understand the mentality of hon. Members opposite when they deal with this question of benefit. We have heard denunciations of the whole principle of Poor Law, for example. The Poor Law was instituted for giving assistance to what one might call the down-and-outs. It was charity on the part of the ratepayer. We have large institutions which are maintained by the charity of the individual. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that if you take this question of charity—a real dale is charity—and simply say that the taxpayer shall find it instead of the ratepayer, you are not sapping the manhood of the receiver, you are not making him a recipient of charitable relief, but you are making him a self-respecting member of the community which calls upon the State to subsidise him. I am not going into the merits of that. What I am pointing out to hon. Members opposite is that the two things, whether you get an unearned or non-contributory dole from the Poor Law or from the generosity of an individual or from the State, it is the
same thing, whereas an unemployment insurance scheme is absolutely different.
The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) said that, after all, this unemployment insurance represented not merely the contributions of the worker, but was subsidised by the taxpayer as the State, and by the employer. That is perfectly true, and what is the reason for it? If you have an insurance scheme which is sound, the benefits that you draw are contingent on the contributions that the scheme brings in. If the unemployment insurance scheme benefits were dependent solely on the contributions which the workers in industry can make to it, it is obvious the benefits would be very small. Therefore, because the State, as a whole, was interested in the welfare of its citizens and because the employers as a whole were interested in the welfare of their workers, and the worker himself was interested in his own welfare, those three have contributed to this scheme which was intended to be actuarially sound. As soon as you begin to have what is admittedly not an insurance scheme at all, camouflage it how you like, but a dole or super-dole, then you are getting into really deep water.
It seems to me that in this particular case, if the Government had only taken a real stand and said, "If we reform Clause 4 in the way that we have been compelled to do by our supporters, we are going to destroy the whole basis of the Insurance Bill; allow us to carry this through as we had intended, even if it is only a first instalment prior to bringing in some future Measure whereby, by a definitely charitable organisation, we may assist those"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is no good hon. Members opposite just laughing. There are occasions when we have to help the lame dog over the stile. One feels that responsibility, but if we are trying to approach it on a basis of insurance, it is no good mixing it up with the question of charity whether from the State or anybody else. That is obvious, and it is common-sense.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does not the hon. and gallant Member recognise that in this scheme the worker does pay by far the larger proportion. He pays directly, and as a consumer he pays indirectly, because the employer places his portion on to the price of the article. He not only pays directly, but he pays indirectly
as a consumer and again as a taxpayer through his tobacco and his beer.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Major DAVIES: I know full well that the hon. Member is not only a nonsmoker but a teetotaller, and therefore his argument carries no weight. If I were to follow the lines he has indicated, I might point out that, if you are going to put burdens on industry, which gives employment, the greater the burden the more you will make it difficult for industry to give employment, and so you are tackling it from the wrong end. Instead of providing employment, you are, in other words, concentrating on maintenance.

Mr. WALLHEAD: No, you were talking about charity.

Major DAVIES: I am not going to give way again. I never enter into discussions with non-smokers. We owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), because he has swept aside this camouflage and has stood for full maintenance always if you cannot provide work. He is quite right from his standpoint when he says, "Will 10s. per week keep a widow, and will 17s. a week keep a man in the prime of life?" No one has ever suggested that it would. Sometimes, hon. Members opposite try to suggest that we on this side, because we try to take a longer view of a very complex problem than they do, are not moved by the same feelings for our fellow-creatures as they are. We cannot help them making cheap capital out of that on the platform, but here in the House of Commons it will not do. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Member for Bridgeton when trying to approach the problem represented by the black core which cuts right across the whole system, and which the Front Bench are trying to camouflage under pressure from their supporters below the Gangway. That is why we are going to be landed in an impasse which, instead of solving the problem of the unemployed man who is temporarily out of work, is merely going to accentuate it and is tackling a wholly different problem on an entirely unsatisfactory basis.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. LAWSON: rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 164.

Division No. 92.]
AYES.
[9.36 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Glassey, A. E.
MacNeil-Weir, L.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gosling, Harry
McShane, John James


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gossling, A. G.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Alpass, J. H.
Gould, F.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mansfield, W.


Angell, Norman
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marcus, M.


Arnott, John
Gray, Milner
Markham, S. F.


Aske, Sir Robert
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Marley, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mathers, George


Ayles, Walter
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Matters, L. W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Groves, Thomas E.
Melville, Sir James


Barnes, Alfred John
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milddleton, G.


Barr, James
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Millar, J. D.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mills, J. E.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Milner, J.


Bellamy, Albert
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Montague, Frederick


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Harbord, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hardie, George D.
Morley, Ralph


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Benson, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Haycock, A. W.
Mort, D. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hayday, Arthur
Moses, J. J. H.


Blindell, James
Hayes, John Henry
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Bowen, J. W.
Herriotts, J.
Muff, G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Murnin, Hugh


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hoffman, P. C.
Naylor, T. E.


Bromfield, William
Hollins, A.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, Daniel
Oldfield, J. R.


Brothers, M.
Horrabin, J. F.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs, George
Palin, John Henry


Burgess, F. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Palmer, E. T.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Perry, S. F.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Caine, Derwent Hall.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Cape, Thomas
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Carter, W. (St. Pancrae, S.W.)
Kelly, W. T.
Pole, Major D. G.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Thomas
Ponsonby, Arthur


Chater, Daniel
Kinley, J.
Potts, John S.


Church, Major A. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Price, M. P.


Clarke, J. S.
Knight, Holford
Pybus, Percy John


Cluse, W. S.
Lang, Gordon
Quibell, D. J. K.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lathan, G.
Raynes, W. R.


Compton, Joseph
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richards, R.


Cove, William G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Daggar, George
Lawrence, Susan
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Dallas, George
La[...]e, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Ritson, J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Romeril, H. G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dickson, T.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rowson, Guy


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dukes, C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Duncan, Charles
Lindley, Fred W.
Sanders, W. S.


Ede, James Chuter
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sandham, E.


Edge, Sir William
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.
Scott, James


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lowth, Thomas
Scurr, John


Egan, W. H.
Lunn, William
Sexton, James


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Forgan, Dr. Robert
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sherwood, G. H.


Freeman, Peter
McElwee, A.
Shield, George William


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mackinder, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKinlay, A.
Shinwell, E.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Sullivan, J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Simmons, C. J.
Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Sinkinson, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
West, F. R.


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Tillett, Ben
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Toole, Joseph
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Tout, W. J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Turner, B.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sorensen, R.
Vaughan, D. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Spero, Dr. G. E.
Viant, S. P.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Walker, J.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Stephen, Campbell
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Watkins, F. C.



Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strauss, G. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Albery, Irving James
Foot, Isaac
Muirhead, A. J.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
O'Neill, Sir H.


Astor, Viscountess
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Atholl, Duchess of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Penny, Sir George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grace, John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balniel, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beaumont, M. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Purbrick, R.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, John R.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bracken, B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, R. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, s.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smithers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colville, Major D. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cowan, D. M.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Crookshank, Capt, H. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tinne, J. A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Long, Major Eric
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lymington, Viscount
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Dixey, A. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Meller, R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Mond, Hon. Henry



Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Warrender.

Question put, accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 159.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[9.42 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Alpass, J. H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.(Hillsbro')
Ammon, Charles George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Angell, Norman


Arnott, John
Grundy, Thomas W.
Montague, Frederick


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morley, Ralph


Ayles, Walter
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Harbison, T. J.
Mort, D. L.


Barnes, Alfred John
Harbord, A.
Moses, J. J. H.


Barr, James
Hardie, George D.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muff, G.


Bellamy, Albert
Haycock, A. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, Hugh


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T. E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Benson, G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Herriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Blindell, James
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Bowen, J. W.
Hollins, A.
Palin, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hopkin, Daniel
Palmer, E. T.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Horrabin, J. F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Perry, S. F.


Bromfield, William
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Brooke, W.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brothers, M.
Isaacs, George
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pole, Major D. G.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Potts, John S.


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, M. P.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Pybus, Percy John


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Kelly, W. T.
Raynes, W. R.


Cameron, A. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Richards, R.


Cape, Thomas
Kinley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kirkwood, D.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Knight, Holford
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Chater, Daniel
Lang, Gordon
Ritson, J.


Church, Major A. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Clarke, J. S.
Lathan, G.
Romeril, H. G.


Cluse, W. S.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Rowson, Guy


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Compton, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Cowan, D. M.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sandham, E.


Daggar, George
Leach, W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Dallas, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Scott, James


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scrymgeour, E.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lees, J.
Scurr, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sexton, James


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindley, Fred W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Devlin, Joseph
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sherwood, G. H.


Dickson, T.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shield, George William


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Longden, F
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dukes, C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Duncan, Charles
Lowth, Thomas
Shinwell, E.


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edge, Sir William
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simmons, C. J.


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McElwee, A.
Sinkinson, George


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Egan, W. H.
Mackinder, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Elmley, Viscount
McKinlay, A.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Freeman, Peter
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McShane, John James
Sorensen, R.


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Gill, T. H.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Glassey, A. E.
Mansfield, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Gosling, Harry
Marcus, M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gossling, A. G.
Markham, S. F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gould, F.
Marley, J.
Strauss, G. R.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mathers, George
Sullivan, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Matters, L. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Gray, Milner
Maxton, James
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Melville, Sir James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Tillett, Ben


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Millar, J. D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mills, J. E.
Toole, Joseph


Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, J.
Tout, W. J.




Townend, A. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Turner, B.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Vaughan, D. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Viant, S. P.
West, F. R.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Walker, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Wallhead, Richard C.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Watkins, F. C.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)



Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Foot, Isaac
Muirhead, A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
O'Neill, Sir H.


Astor, Viscountess
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Atholl, Duchess of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Grace, John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balniel, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beaumont, M. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Purbrick, R.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, John R.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bracken, B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, R. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hunter-Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smithers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colville, Major D. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Commodore Rt. Horn Henry D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cranbourne, Viscount
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tinne, J. A.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dalkeith, Earl of
Long, Major Eric
Turton, Robert Hugh


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lymington, Viscount
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dixey, A. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Mond, Hon. Henry
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Fermoy, Lord
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor




Warrender.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 1, after the word "benefit," to insert the words—
by an insured person who has attained the age of eighteen.
This Clause has been described as the genuinely waiting for work Clause, and whatever may be our views about adults I think it will be admitted on all sides
of the House that if there is one class of the population rather than another whom we do not wish to encourage to draw and spend money they have not earned it is these young people, many of whom are being brought into unemployment insurance for the first time under this Bill. I also wish to have an explanation from the right hon. Lady as to how she reconciles the proposed
new Clause with Clause 11 which was inserted in the Bill during the Committee stage. Clause 11 provides that persons under 18 shall attend training centres, and it also provides that the insurance officer shall give to these unemployed juveniles instructions in writing to attend, and if they do not obey those instructions they shall be disqualified from benefit. It seems to me that there is a difficulty in reconciling those words with the words of the new Clause.
If it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that a claimant has without good cause refused or failed to carry out any written directions given to him by an officer of an Employment Exchange with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment.
I think it is difficult to argue that instructions to attend a training centre are the same as instructions given with a view to finding suitable employment, and I feel strongly that if we are to make the provision of training for unemployed juveniles as proposed under this unemployment insurance scheme, a success, we should at least give separate treatment to those juveniles who attend training centres, because nothing is worse for them than loafing about on money which they have not earned. That is exactly the point which was put by the right hon. Lady when she herself moved the new Clause which is now in the Bill to provide that training should be given wherever possible. But I am very doubtful as to how this Clause, as far as juveniles are concerned, can be reconciled with Clause 11. My main anxiety is to see that nothing is put into this Clause which will make the conditions in Clause 11 inoperative.

Commander WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to point out that as the training centres develop, as we all hope they will, these juveniles will have a great advantage over those who have gone forward into insurance, and I think this Amendment may be helpful as an encouragement to the training centres in their operations.

Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot for the life of me see that there is the slightest inconsistency between the proposal laid down in Clauses 1 and 11 of the Bill and the Clause to which we have just assented. The intention, obviously, is that those who are in receipt of benefit,
those who are under what we call the juvenile Clauses of the Bill, will naturally come under this Clause governing the operation of the Exchange. In any case, the training centre may very properly be and probably will be, the quickest doorway through which they can get into permanent employment, and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) will not press the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The right hon. Lady has waived this Amendment aside much too easily. If she will read the new Clause and Clause 11, she will find that they are quite inconsistent. May I remind the right hon. Lady what Clause 11 does. It says that in a case where the insured person is under 18,
it shall be the duty of the Minister, if there is an approved course of instruction … to cause notice in writing in the prescribed form to be given to him … and if he fails without good cause to attend the course, he will be disqualified from the receipt of benefit.
That is a perfectly fair statement. If the young person is out of work, the Minister's representative gives him notice in writing that there is a course of instruction which he should and could attend, and that, if he does not, he will receive no benefit. That may be the governing condition, and it is indeed what the House as a whole desires to be done with the young person, but in the new Clause to which we have just given a Second Reading, is an entirely different set of circumstances. In the case of a claimant under that Clause, it has to be proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that an offer of a job is open to him, and in certain circumstances given in writing, and so forth. It has nothing to do with courses of instruction at all. All that my hon. Friends are anxious to see is that the course of instruction shall be the governing condition, and I think that is what the hon. Lady wishes. It is quite simple to insert words to keep young persons out of the operation of the new Clause. We can safely do this for young persons on the ground that there is very little juvenile unemployment, and, judging from the reports which have been published in connection with this Bill, there is likely to be less. Further, the transitional provisions, which ease the operation of the 30 contributions, does not apply to these
persons. Therefore, we get a second corroboration of the fact that there will be very little unemployment in the category with which we are dealing. We want to thin down that small amount of unemployment to those for whom it shall be a condition that they shall be given a course of instruction. It seems perfectly clear that the only way to make the Clause absolutely watertight from the point of view of such claims is to insert this Amendment.

10.0 p.m.

Major DAVIES: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady so quickly gave the stereotyped answer to this Amendment, because there is a distinct danger here that we are liable to miss what we all want to do. We have had an interesting Debate on the Second Reading of the Clause, and we have been gratified to feel that all quarters of the House have been unanimous on this question of being able to provide technical or similar training for the young people. The right hon. Lady said, in her very brief reply, that one of the things to which she looked for ward was that the instruction centres would be an immediate gateway to employment, but there is a case that they may become a gateway to unemployment, and we want to avoid that danger. What is in her mind is that there may be certain cases in which there is not at present provision for one of these technical schools or juvenile training centres, and that therefore the juveniles may fall between two stools. If that be the case, it will be an infinitesimal number, be cause the statisticians show us that the number of juveniles likely to be affected by the Clause will be gradually smaller in future. Therefore, those who will not be able to go to the juvenile training centres, which we have every confidence that the right hon. Lady and her extremely silent colleague, the President of the Board of Education, are likely to provide in increasing numbers, will be very small in number. I urge the right hon. Lady to consider whether it is right to say that these two parts are not mutually antipathetic, and to consider whether there is not a good deal more truth than poetry in the suggestion of this Amendment. If she merely negatives it, we shall find that in our endeavours to be success ful in dealing with juvenile unemploy-
ment, and guiding it into the channel of juvenile instruction and training for future non-juvenile employment, we have rather discounted what we hoped would be a successful scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to appeal to the right hon. Lady's better nature, because this is a very simple matter, and it is what she really wishes. She has explained that there is nothing incompatible between Clauses 1 and 11, and this new Clause. This Amendment makes it perfectly straightforward, and if it is not put in, what is the situation? We are faced with the idea that she does not mean to go on with the educational facilities given in Clause That would be a most unfortunate attitude for her to take up. Does she really mean that Clause 11 will be a dead letter, and that the children are to go straight on to the "dole"? If this Clause remains with its present wording, there is nothing to prevent a child up to the age of 18 going on to the "dole" and not getting any training at all. Therefore, I suggest that in her own interest and in the interest of the party and of the Liberal party, she should accept the very simple words which will make the meaning perfectly clear. She and her Leader asked that we should become a Council of State, and we are actually assisting her in that function in moving this Amendment. It will save the time of the House if she accepts it.

Major COLFOX: Are we not to have a reply from the Government? I know the Minister of Labour has exhausted her right to speak, but surely the Parliamentary Secretary can reply to this very reasonable and moderate Amendment. If it is a question of the training centres not being sufficiently organised or in sufficient numbers, it would be a great convenience to have the presence of the Minister of Education, though I suppose it is almost too much to expect him to condescend to attend, and if he cannot be prevailed upon to attend to this particular side of his job, surely some other representative of the Government Front Bench might consult him to discover what the position is. Surely, too, we have a right to expect that pressure shall be exerted on the Government by the leader of the Labour party who sits for Bridge ton (Mr. Maxton). He is never tired of telling us of his sympathy with all sorts
of unfortunate people, and there can be no section of the community more worthy of his sympathy or more deserving of his regard than unemployed boys and girls. Therefore, I should have expected him to join us on this occasion. He has very rarely agreed with us in the past, but even he might be prevailed upon to see the worth of this particular Amendment. I appeal from the Government Front Bench to the leaders of the Government on the back benches to assist us to press forward this cause which we have so much at heart.

Mr. LAWSON: It can be scarcely necessary for us to spend much time over this matter, especially as we have so much other business to get through. The effect of this Amendment would be to reestablish for young people under 18 the test as to their "not genuinely seeking work." It is true that the test of attending a training school is to be applied to those for whom training is available, and though, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Davies) pointed out, there may be one or two youths or girls for whom training is not available, the fact remains that the result of accepting this Amendment would be that while the vast majority of the House have agreed that the "not genuinely seeking work" test must be abolished, it would be left in operation for those under 18. Therefore, we refuse this Amendment as being very unfair to those boys and girls.

Major HARVEY: I think the explanation we have heard cannot satisfy the House. It is seldom I take part in Debates, hut I must intervene when I see the state of affairs at which we have arrived as the result of withdrawing the original Clause and presenting the new one. The proposal that young people should be eligible for unemployment benefit without any necessity to undergo training has raised a storm of indignation throughout the country for which it is very difficult to find a comparison. If the hon. Lady realised the feeling in the country she would have been careful in drafting the Clause to exclude the possibility of what has occurred. I think the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary was a very poor one.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Although I am not in favour of the Amendment I think the Parliamentary Secretary has unwittingly misled the House, because in
the Third Schedule of this Bill the words "genuinely seeking work" are repealed. They will not remain in existence when this Bill is passed. Though the Amendment would not prevent young people from seeking employment of their own accord, it is not the fact that they would be subject to the requirement as to "genuinely seeking work," because that will be repealed.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I would like to add a word in favour of this Amendment. I do not think the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary was at all adequate. He said the objection to the Amendment was that it perpetuated in the case of young persons under 18 the expression "genuinely seeking work." Personally, I wish to maintain that phrase in connection with those young people. The Bill will create in their minds the impression that they are the dependants of the State. There will be very little unemployment amongst them, and I think it is an excellent thing that the onus of finding work should be placed upon them and not on the insurance officer. The feeling of independence which this Bill will tend to destroy ought to be fostered as much as possible amongst young people.

Amendment negatived.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 1, to leave out from the word "benefit," to the word "he," in line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the claimant fails to prove that he is making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacities and is willing to accept such employment.
It may have dawned on the House that these are the very words which were inserted by the Minister of Labour in the last Labour Government. They are in the Unemployment Insurance Act (No. 2) of 1924, Section 1 (3, d). We on this side of the House set some little store on this Amendment, because if we are to scrap One scheme we ought to be certain that what we set up in its place will be a better one, and we have considerable doubts about the proposal before us. I cannot help thinking that the Liberal party ought to support this Amendment, because they always go for simplicity. The simple form of words used by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr.
Hayday) in Thursday's Debate were applauded by the Liberal party because of their simplicity. What could be simpler than these words? Extraordinary efforts have been made to find some suitable form of words to deal with the question of "not genuinely seeking work." It may be said that in moving this Amendment we have gone round in a complete circle, and that the words I have just read out are to a great extent the same as the old words not genuinely seeking work."
We are told that these words are incapable of being carried out, but I refuse to believe that, and I hope to show later what I mean. For instance, in law, it is no use saying that you cannot understand the state of a man's mind, because you will find in law such words as "intent" "fraudulently" and "negligently," each of which involves an inquiry into the state of a man's mind. Let hon. Members just follow this circle for a moment. First of all, take the phrase "not genuinely seeking work." When hon. Members opposite were in opposition they declared that the phrase "not genuinely seeking work" led to all kinds of administrative persecution. We also heard statements from the present Secretary of State for War, who was Minister of Labour in the last Labour Government, to the effect that the trouble about those words was that they were capable of being twisted. That does not necessarily prove that the insertion of these words is wrong, but that the administration was wrong, and consequently it is the administration that we must go for, and not attempt by inserting new words to alter the whole thing. After coming to the conclusion that the phrase "not genuinely seeking work" was not right, the Blanesburgh Committee was appointed, and it is interesting to note that when they issued their Report that Committee agreed that the words" not genuinely seeking work "should remain as they were. On page 47 of the Blanesburgh Report, the Committee state:
We suggest that among the statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit. a fuller definition of the phrase genuinely seeking work should be made.
A little further on the Report says:
This definition would be in keeping with the policy at present followed by the
Umpire, of which, if we may say so, we entirely agree.
Those words were agreed to and signed by the present Minister of Labour. When the present Government conic into office, they appointed what is known as the Morris Committee which made some definite recommendations, and they put forward three conditions to be substituted for the old form of words. In the first place, they laid down the condition that a man knew that work was available; secondly, that he ought to have known; and, thirdly, that suitable work in his ordinary occupation was there, and he did not take it. The Government tried to carry out the recommendations of the Morris Committee, and they put them into the original Clause 4 of this Bill, but they were routed last Thursday and those words were taken out. This proves that it is utterly impossible to find any form of words to cover each specific case. Therefore, we must have a very general formula and concentrate on the administration.
I remember that last Thursday, when the original Clause 4 came up for discussion, many hon. Members on this side of the House argued that it was impossible to work, and, therefore, wanted to put in a time limit of 15 months. It turned out that three hours was quite long enough for that particular Clause to last, and I should not be surprised if the Clause which we are discussing will prove to be quite as unworkable. You must put down something which indicates that a man shall be entitled to benefit if he cannot get work, in spite of making every effort to do so, and that, I think, is covered better by the original form of words in the Act of 1924 than by the present Bill. The rest is purely administration. It was shown earlier in the Debate how impossible some of the Clauses are. The finest literature against the present suggestion of the Government is their own White Paper. The paragraph which was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) as regards married men in itself damns the whole proposal. Paragraph 9 speaks of
a considerable group of new claimants consisting of persons who, so to speak, are not really in the market as competitors for employment, but may hold themselves out as such if they are thereby enabled to qualify for benefit.
That proves already that the Clause on the Paper is completely impossible as regards administration. There is another reason why we wish to go back to something wider, and at the same time to alter the administration. Under the present system the idea is that the Employment Exchanges, or someone else, will have definitely to offer the man a job, and it seems to me that the following will happen. Obviously, you cannot offer to an employer who wants labour simply one man, and say that he must take him; you must offer the employer a number of men for that one job, and he takes the one whom he thinks most suitable. As everyone knows, there is a number of people who may be described as the residue of the labour market, who for some reason or other, although they may want work, will never be able to get it; and it seems to me that under this present Clause these men, who probably are inefficient—nothing more than that—will be able to draw benefit for the rest of their lives. I fail to see anything in the Clause which will prevent that, and I cannot believe that that is the idea of an Insurance Bill. As I have said again and again when I have spoken on this Bill, you cannot fit a relief scheme into an Insurance Bill.
One more point is that the onus must, in my opinion, still be placed on the man. It is utterly impossible otherwise for the Employment Exchange to deal with the man. I do not want again to quote from the Report, but it shows how few vacancies are filled at the present time from the Employment Exchanges. The right hon. Lady herself said that she hoped that the placing side would be very much developed, and I quite agree. She said that she hoped that Members in all quarters of the House would assist her in seeing as far as possible that this was done, and I can assure her that, while we on this side are trying to amend this Clause, and not to defeat it, if it ultimately becomes law we shall certainly try our best to see that it does not break down by our throwing -sand into the machine. We shall try to make it work as well as it can, but we do not believe that it can possibly work in the circumstances. The White Paper states that 20 per cent. only of the vacancies which arise in insurable employment are filled through the Employment Exchanges, and, again, that
for any immediate date it can scarcely be assumed that more than one-third, or even perhaps one-quarter, of the vacancies would be so notified.
In other words, it seems to be utterly impossible for the Exchanges as they are at the present moment to work a Clause of this kind, which says that, unless a definite job is placed before a man, chiefly by means of the Exchange, the man himself need not necessarily go and look for work, but can draw his benefit.
There is yet another reason why something much wider and simpler should be substituted. It seems to us extraordinary that the old Sub-section (3) has completely disappeared. The Attorney-General said that the words of the new Clause covered that—that a man who was offered a job in some other work than his own would be required to take it. But, if it was necessary to lay that down in the original Clause 4 in a separate Sub-section, it should still be necessary, and, if that be not so, it seems an additional reason why something wider should be included. For instance, there is at the present moment a number of people who are gradually getting unemployed through civilisation differing, and through differences in fashion. For instance, there cannot be very much employment at present in piano factories, because the number of pianos turned out is, I understand, very much smaller than used to be the case, and harness makers are gradually going out of work. All this must be covered in some way so that a man shall go into some other industry at once if there is no employment going in his own industry. Let me quote the words of the Attorney-General.
Are we to legislate on the lines that these people should think that they need do nothing themselves; that they should wait at home, sit down, smoke their pipes and wait until an offer comes to them? On the other hand, are we by our legislation to give effect to the principle that just as God helps those who help themselves, so we want to encourage in every way we can the spirit amongst these unhappy people that they must help themselves and not rely solely on what others can do for them? "—OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2687, Vol. 232.]
I believe those words of the Attorney-General will become just as famous as those of the Minister of War about rabbits. I believe that the Clause is unworkable and that the onus should be placed on the man, and finally I believe
simplicity is absolutely essential and that the matter should be dealt with by some such words as these, by altering the administration of the Act and not the the wording, and for that reason I move the Amendment.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I was very interested in listening in the earlier stage of the Debate to the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), who seemed to imply that, whereas under a trade union insurance scheme it was perfectly legitimate to impose the onus of proof upon the claimant, under a scheme in which the State pays a part of the contribution the entire onus of proof should be upon the State. I do not believe that is possible. What is more, the hon. Member urged that we should be generous. I want to point out at whose expense we are being generous. First of all, let us disabuse ourselves of the idea that we are being generous at the expense of the State. We are not. The people at whose expense we are being generous are the ordinary contributors to the scheme, the men—there are plenty of them in England—who are employed normally for most of the year, but, possibly owing to seasonal conditions, possibly to a temporary accident in the works at which they are employed, are for a few weeks without a job, the 14,000,000 people who are mostly in employment and only very occasionally in unemployment. The vast majority of the claims are for very short periods and the vast majority of the people are in employment most of the time. They are contributors to the fund, and it is at the expense of them and their employers that we are attempting to be generous. For that reason alone, I believe that the Clause is totally unworkable, and I, therefore, support the Amendment.

Mr. LAWSON: This Debate has lasted for something like five hours, and, of course, we can go on for another five hours, but I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman in respect to the general purposes of the Debate. It is clear that what the Amendment seeks to do is once more to place the onus of proof upon the claimant. Whatever else there may be a difference of opinion about, I do not think that there can be any difference of opinion in respect to the simple fact that
this is an Amendment to alter a very decisive Clause. There is not a Member in this House who has had experience of the working of the Unemployment Insurance Acts during the last two years who does not realise that the onus of proof upon the claimant is so great that he is expected to discover work in places where everybody knows there is no work. This onus of proof has been condemned by Members of every party. If I wished to continue this Debate, I could remind hon. Members of the experiences of placing the onus of proof upon the men. I do not intend to go into this matter at any length, and I therefore only wish to say that the Government certainly cannot accept this Amendment in view of the nature of the Debate and the attitude taken up on this Clause.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been very cavalier in his treatment of the serious Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), when he said—it is about the only thing he did say—that he was surprised that anybody thought that it was a good thing to put the onus on the claimant. I am simply amazed that he should be a Parliamentary Secretary of that type and be surprised at anybody holding that view. My hon. and gallant Friend explained the actual words in this Amendment, and the words we seek to insert, are taken from the Act of 1924.

Mr. SANDHAM: Is it Numbers or Revelation?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I note that when these very words were under discussion, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) moved their deletion. He was supported in that action by the usual number of friends who surround him. On that occasion, their onslaught upon the Front Bench was not so successful as that of last week. The present Secretary of State for War, in resisting that Amendment and in asking that these words should be kept in, said:
It is proposed to delete a paragraph which provides that a man under certain circumstances, having received benefit for a considerable time in proportion to his contributions, must show that he is making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suitable to his capacity, and that he is willing to accept such employment. Surely there is nothing wrong in that re-
quirement …. I think that is a perfectly reasonable condition to make. Where is there a society of any kind whatever where the onus of proof does not lie upon the man making the application? I know before a trade unionist gets his benefit he has to prove that he is entitled. I am not willing that the benefits of the Fund should be given to a man whether he is entitled to them or not.
That was the then Minister of Labour. What is more, he was so successful in the exposition and explanation of the arguments in defence of the Clause that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camlachie asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, and that was done.

Mr. STEPHEN: But the hon. and gallant Member did not point out that the previous Minister of Labour intimated that he would see that the administration was made very generous in dealing with those cases, and now we have had the experience that even generous administration has not been sufficient to allow people to get the benefit which they should get, and we are simply profiting from our experience.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have not the time, and the House would not wish me, to read through the speech of the Secretary of State for War to find out whether he said that, but my eye has caught this statement:
Neither am I prepared to accept the accusation so often made that local Committees use their functions for the purpose of depriving people of their benefit who are genuinely entitled to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1924; cols. 2324–2325, Vol. 175.]
The Parliamentary Secretary said that he was surprised that anybody should take the view that the onus should be on the claimant. I have read the view of the Secretary of State for War, which was made at the time when he was Minister of Labour. That view has been thrown over. We have the same line of argument taken by the present Minister of Labour. As she knows perfectly well, she has often had to refresh her memory in regard to the Blanesburgh Report, that was one of the fundamental principles which she and her colleagues on that Committee adopted, The line they took was that the scheme was not an out-of-work donation scheme, that you had to keep the insurance principle in it, and that it was necessary in order to do that that the claimant should have placed
upon him the onus of proving that he was trying to get work. That has been thrown over. My hon. and gallant Friend has quoted the Attorney-General. He has been thrown over too. Before he was thrown over we had the throwing over of the Secretary of State for War, and we have had the Minister of Labour throwing herself over in the Blanesburgh Report. Then we have the extraordinary spectacle that she asked a specially appointed Committee to investigate this very problem, and they reported. The Morris Committee, on page 20 of their Report, paragraph 41, definitely stated the same principle that we are trying to maintain. This is the Committee which the Minister of Labour herself asked to investigate the problem. They said:
It is generally conceded that in a scheme of insurance against unemployment, benefit should only be paid to those people covered by the scheme who desire to obtain employment, and that it is right to include some requirement that those who are unemployed shall make reasonable effort to obtain employment.
The Report further states:
The claimant should be required to prove that he has made reasonable efforts by the usual means to obtain such suitable work as may be available.
That is the same principle. The Minister of Labour cannot allow the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he is surprised that anybody should hold that view, because that view is expressed by the Committee which she appointed and it is their considered opinion.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: It is not a unanimous Report.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Then we have the Attorney-General, who has been thrown over. My hon. and gallant Friend quoted a phrase from his speech, but I think there was a stronger phrase which was used by the Attorney-General last week, which indicated agreement with the Committee on this principle, the holding of which opinion gives surprise to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I think that every Member of the Committee will agree that it is a sound principle to lay down that you must expect from all these men an endeavour to help themselves, and an endeavour to do what they can to remedy their own situation, and not merely rely upon what can be done for them"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2687, Vol. 232.]

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Captain CROOKSHANK: Then we are still agreed about that. But the point is that we have put words into the new Clause which do not make that an essential condition. These are four different authorities which have been deliberately thrown overboard by the right hon. Lady. We are asking that certain words shall be inserted and that certain words shall be taken out. I object to the phrase "or other recognised agency." It is far too vague and may cover a great many things which I am not sure that it is meant to cover. Then we have the expression" without good cause refused," which I fear will lead to considerable difficulty. We do not explain what kind of "cause" we have in mind. Then object to the words "written directions." I see the point of having written directions, but when I was in the Army one of the most tiresome things we had to contend with when we wanted to get things done in a hurry was that we had to have written directions; and I do not want to enlarge the sphere of "written directions" at all. I would sweep away all these words and insert the perfectly simple words of the previous Act. The difficulty the right hon. Lady will find in administering this new Clause is its enormous length. What we want is something as clear as you can get, in words which you can explain to any man or woman; but if you get someone claiming benefit and you have to read out something from an Act of Parliament which covers 22 lines it is only going to befog the unfortunate claimant. When the Conservative party moved their reasoned Amendment on the Second Reading of this Bill one of the objections they took was that it
is calculated to produce administrative confusion by the vague and unsatisfactory nature of its tests as to whether an applicant for benefit is seeking employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; 753. Vol. 232.]
If that was true of the earlier proposal in regard to an applicant seeking employment it is still more true in the case of an Employment Exchange offering him a job. If we had had any idea that a Clause like this would be proposed I am sure we should have put in our reasoned Amendment words far stronger than we did.
May I ask the right hon. Lady to tell us what objection she finds to the words
of the proposed Amendment to the Clause. I really should like her to apply her mind to the problem. We are trying to get the best form of words we can devise for a very difficult position with regard to those who claim unemployment benefit, and it is no good saying that because this puts the onus on the claimant and the first proposal did not that therefore it is automatically wrong. I should like the right hon. Lady to tell us what objection she has to these form of words. They are not very dissimilar to the form of words which relate to a certain number of trade unions; and she has only to refer to the speech the right hon. Member for Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) in which he quoted Rule 21 (b) of the South Wales Miners' Federation, which distinctly speaks of the executive council having to be satisfied that a bona fide endeavour was being made to obtain work. The trade unions may prefer the Latin. I prefer the plain English of the Amendment, but in actual practice they mean practically the same thing. I hope the right hon. Lady will, therefore, look upon this suggestion rather more favourably than the Parliamentary Secretary did.
If you put the onus back upon the claimant you are only continuing what has been the essential principle of unemployment insurance since 1911. Apart from the difficulties of administration which have proved themselves in the last few years, there has been no argument from anyone to show why that long-established principle should here and now be upset. I put this as a final consideration: In the White Paper which the Minister has mothered to-day—if I may use that expression—there is a phrase to the effect that the possibility should not be overlooked that the new Clause will have the effect of bringing into benefit certain other persons who cannot be foreseen at the moment. It mentions, for example, married women who have done little or no work since marriage, and seasonal workers during the off season. [Interruption.] I am merely quoting words for which the Minister herself is responsible.
Incidentally, I would like to say how much some of us deplore the attitude of some hon. Members opposite with regard to this White Paper. They have gone out of their way to attack what we know
that certain officials of the Ministry have had to spend day and night in preparing in a great hurry for the use of hon. Members. It is most unfair for hon. Members opposite to attack those who cannot answer back. It is the Minister who is responsible for this White Paper. In it, it is stated that under the new Clause there will be brought in a great number of people who, a week ago, she would never have thought were likely to be brought in. That is a rough summary of the statement. It is also stated that the extra charge on the Exchequer next year as a result of this loosening of the words and of altering the onus of proof, will be something like £2,000,000. I am certain that if our alternative words had been accepted there would be no possibility of that.
Hon. Members opposite forget all the time that this is an Insurance Bill. In order to keep it within the confines of insurance we must see that there is no wasteful expenditure. My final reasons for asking the House to accept the Amendment are that the cost is £2,000,000

more than the Minister expected it would be last week, that in the year 1930–31 the Exchequer will have to find something like £26,500,000 for Unemployment Insurance; and that if the Minister looks back, as a matter of interest, to some of the national expenditure that used to be thought colossal before the War, she will find that this is a sum far in excess of the whole of the National Debt charges in the last year before the War, that it is almost the same as the cost of the Army before the War, and that it is half as much again as what the Exchequer had to pay for education in 1913–14. I suggest that the Minister might well ponder over these figures in the quiet moments which will succeed the passage of this Bill.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. LAWSON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 159.

Division No. 94.]
AYES.
[10.50 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cameron, A. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cape, Thomas
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Or. Christopher
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Groves, Thomas E.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Chater, Daniel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Alpass, J. H.
Clarke, J. S.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Angell, Norman
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Harbord, A.


Arnott, John
Compton, Joseph
Hardle, George D.


Aske, Sir Robert
Cove, William G.
Harris, Percy A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Daggar, George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Ayles, Walter
Dallas, George
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dalton, Hugh
Haycock, A. W.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hayday, Arthur


Barnes, Alfred John
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hayes, John Henry


Barr, James
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Batey, Joseph
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Dukes, C.
Herriotts, J.


Bellamy, Albert
Duncan, Charles
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Ede, James Chuter
Hoffman, P. C.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Edmunds, J. E.
Hollins, A.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hopkin, Daniel


Benson, G.
Egan, W. H.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Elmiey, Viscount
Horrabin, J. F.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Foot, Isaac
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Blinded, James
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Freeman, Peter
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Bowen, J. W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Isaacs, George


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brockway, A. Fenner
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bromfield, William
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Brooke, W.
Gill, T. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brothers, M.
Glassey, A. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gossling, A. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gould, F.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Burgess, F. G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Granville, E.
Kelly, W. T.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Gray, Milner
Kennedy, Thomas


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Kinley, J.


Caine, Derwent Hall.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kirkword, D.


Knight, Holford
Muggeridge, H. T.
Sinkinson, George


Lang, Gordon
Murnin, Hugh
Sitch, Charles H.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Lathan, G.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Lawrence, Susan
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lawson, John James
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)
Palin, John Henry
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Leach, W.
Paling, Wilfrid
Sorensen, R.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Palmer, E. T.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lees, J.
Perry, S. F.
Stephen, Campbell


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Lindley, Fred W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Strauss, G. R.


Longbottom, A. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Sullivan, J.


Longden, F.
Pole, Major D. G.
Sutton, J. E.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lowth, Thomas
Potts, John S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lunn, William
Price, M. P.
Tillett, Ben


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Pybus, Percy John
Tinker, John Joseph


McElwee, A.
Qulbell, D. J. K.
Toole, Joseph


McEntee, V. L.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Tout, W. J.


Mackinder, W.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Townend, A. E.


McKinlay, A.
Raynes, W. R.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Richards, R.
Turner, B.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Vaughan, D. J.


McShane, John James
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Viant, S. P.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Walker, J.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Ritson, J.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Mansfield, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watkins, F. C.


Marcus, M.
Romeril, H. G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Markham, S. F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T,
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Marley, J.
Rowson, Guy
Weilock, Wilfred


Mathers, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Matters, L. w.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Maxton, James
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
West, F. R.


Melville, Sir James
Sanders, W. S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Messer, Fred
Sandham, E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Middleton, G.
Sawyer, G. F.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Millar, J. D.
Scott, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Mills, J. E.
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Milner, J.
Scurr, John
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sexton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morley, Ralph
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sherwood, G. K.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shield, George William
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Mort, D. L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Moses, J. J. H.
Shiliaker, J. F.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Shinwell, E.



Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Muff, G.
Simmons, C. J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.




Henderson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Ferguson, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fermoy, Lord


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Balniel, Lord
Colfox. Major William Philip
Ganzoni, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Beaumont, M. W.
Colville, Major D. J.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cranbourne, Viscount
Grace, John


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bracken, B.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hammersley, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Butler, R. A.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar.& Wh'by)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.




Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Muirhead, A. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Iveagh, Countess of
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smithers, Waldron


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Peaks, Captain Osbert
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Penny, Sir George
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Long, Major Eric
Purbrick, R.
Tinne, J. A.


Lymington, Viscount
Ramsbotham, H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Remer, John R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Marjoribanks, E. C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Meller, R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, Sydney R.


Mond, Hon. Henry
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Windsor-Ciive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Savery, S. S.



Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Skelton, A. N.
Marquess of Titchfield and Captain




Wallace.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'with,' in line 8, stand part of the Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 157.

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[11.1 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Chater, Daniel
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clarke, J. S.
Harbord, A.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cluse, W. S.
Hardle, George D.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Percy A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Compton, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Alpass, J. H.
Cove, William G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Ammon, Charles George
Daggar, George
Haycock, A. W.


Angell, Norman
Dallas, George
Hayday, Arthur


Arnott, John
Dalton, Hugh
Hayes, John Henry


Aske, Sir Robert
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Ayles, Walter
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herriotts, J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Dukes, C.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Barnes, Alfred John
Duncan, Charles
Hoffman, P. C.


Barr, James
Ede, James Chuter
Hollins, A.


Batey, Joseph
Edmunds, J. E.
Hopkin, Daniel


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.


Bellamy, Albert
Egan, W. H.
Horrabin, J. F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Elmley, Viscount
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Foot, Isaac
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Forqan, Dr. Robert
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Benson, G.
Freeman, Peter
Isaacs, George


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Blindell, James
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Bowen, J. W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gill, T. H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Glassey, A. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bromfield, William
Gosling, Harry
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brooke, W.
Gossling, A. G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Brothers, M.
Gould, F.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kennedy, Thomas


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Granville, E.
Kinley, J.


Buchanan, G.
Gray, Milner
Kirkwood, D.


Burgess, F. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Knight, Holford


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lang, Gordon


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lathan, G.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Groves, Thomas E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Cameron, A. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lawrence, Susan


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Sta'ybridge)


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lawson, John James


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Leach, W.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Lees, J.
Palin, John Henry
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Paling, Wilfrid
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lindley, Fred W.
Palmer, E. T.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sorensen, R.


Longbottom, A. W.
Perry, S. F.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Longden, F.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Lowth, Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Lunn, William
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


MacDonald, Rt. Hon, J. R. (Seaham)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Strauss, G. R.


McElwee, A.
Potts, John S.
Sullivan, J.


McEntee, V. L.
Price, M. P.
Sutton, J. E.


Mackinder, W.
Pybus, Percy John
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


McKinlay, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Tinker, John Joseph


MacNeill-weir, L.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Toole, Joseph


McShane, John James
Raynes, W. R.
Tout, W. J.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Richards, R.
Townend, A. E.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Mansfield, W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Turner, B.


Marcus, M.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Vaughan, D. J.


Markham, S. F.
Ritson, J.
Viant, S. P.


Marley, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Walker, J.


Mathers, George
Romeril, H. G.
Wellhead, Richard C.


Matters, L. w.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Watkins, F. C.


Maxton, James
Rowson, Guy
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Melville, Sir James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Messer, Fred
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wellock, Wilfred


Middleton, G.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Millar, J. D.
Sanders, W. s.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Mills, J. E.
Sandham, E.
West, F. R.


Milner, J.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Scott, James
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morley, Ralph
Scrymgeour, E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Scurr, John
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sexton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Mort, D. L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Moses, J. J. H.
Sherwood, G. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trant)
Shield, George William
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attereliffe)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Muff, G.
Shillaker, J. F.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shinwell, E.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Murnin, Hugh
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Nathan, Major H. L.
Simmons, C. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Naylor, T. E.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)



Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sinkinson, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sitch, Charles H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.




Henderson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Christie, J. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Albery, Irving James
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gower, Sir Robert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Grace, John


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Astor, Viscountess
Colman, N. C. D.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Atholl, Duchess of
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cranbourne, Viscount
Hammersley, S. S.


Balniel, Lord
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hartington, Marquess of


Beaumont, M. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Bracken, B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Iveagh, Countess of


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Buckingham, Sir H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Butler, R. A.
Everard, W. Lindsay
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Ferguson, Sir John
Knox, Sir Alfred


Carver, Major W. H.
Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Liewellin, Major J. J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Long, Major Eric




Lymington, Viscount
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Maitland, A. {Kent, Faversham)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Ramsbotham, H.
Steel-Maitland, Ht. Hon. Sir Arthur


Marjoribanks, E. C.
Remer, John R.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Meller, R. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Tinne, J. A.


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mond, Hon. Henry
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Salmon, Major I.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, Sydney R.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Muirhead, A. J.
Savery, S. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



O'Neill, Sir H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Captain Margesson and Captain


Peaks, Capt. Osbert
Smithers, Waldron
Wallace.


Penny, Sir George
Somerville, A, A. (Windsor)

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not propose to select either of the next two Amendments. With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland)—in the proposed new Clause, in line 8, after the word "exchange" to insert the words "as to training at a Government training institute or other approved training institution"—I am not very clear about it, and I should like him to explain it.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think on reading this Amendment that possibly two words such as "or otherwise" have been omitted from the end. The object of this Amendment, the wording of which could be altered, if need be, to suit the Minister of Labour, is this: The offer of training at a Government training institution or other approved training centre should be taken for the purposes of this section as an offer of work. That ought to commend itself to the Minister and every Member of the House. In all great industrial centres we have found that there are many men, often youngish men, who have been out of work for a year or more. Many of them have been ex-service men who had entered the Army at the earliest possible age and were not able to get an industrial training, and have suffered a period of continuous unemployment. The late Government established and the present Government are extending Government training centres in a number of places. In these training centres we have never endeavoured to train people in a particular skilled trade, but we have endeavoured to give them some manual dexterity, to give them the feel-
ing of their hands again, and also to get them accustomed to the kind of routine hours that there are in a factory. When they have left the training centres every effort has been made, both under the late Government and the present Government, to find them places, and there has been great success in this direction.
Track has been kept of every man who has left a training centre after going through the full course, and at any given moment from 87 to 90 per cent. of the people who have been in those training centres have been found to be in employment. The amount of unemployment among them is, on the average, less than in the population as a whole, although they were men who before they went into the training centres had all been unemployed for quite a long period. It is clear that the best thing that could possibly happen to men like that who want work is to go to one of these centres. Experience has shown that though a man has been out of work for a long time beforehand that in nine cases out of 10 he is always in employment afterwards. If there is justification for making training obligatory as a test of benefit for young persons, who will get work any way, it surely should be a test for these men. It is the best possible thing that could happen to them.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman might move his Amendment.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 8, after the word "exchange," to insert the words
as to training at a Government training institution or other approved training institution or otherwise.

Miss BONDFIELD: I rather think that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken as to the actual effect of the Amendment. Its effect would be to limit the written directions to be given by the Exchanges.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I said that the words "or otherwise" were to be inserted in the Amendment.

Miss BONDFIELD: I sympathise with the point of view expressed in the Amendment, but I would just like to say what I am doing in this matter. The Insurance Act of 1920 provided that the Minister may make regulations. The Minister has made regulations with regard to young persons, and I am considering what regulations can be made to deal with the precise question to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and those regulations will have to be placed on the Table of the House, but I cannot do this until I have had some considerable consultation with the localities concerned.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 12, to leave out the word "a", and insert instead thereof the word "such".
The Clause will then read:
for receiving benefit for such period of six weeks, or for such shorter period and for such date as may be determined by the Court of Referees or the Umpire, as the case may be.
I propose to move another consequential Amendment to leave out the words "of six weeks or for such shorter period." I fail to see why the words "six weeks" should be in the Clause. I noticed that in the original Clause 4 six weeks was put into Sub-section (3). I do not know if there is any particular reason for choosing six weeks, but I do not see why the Court should not have complete freedom as to the amount of time for disqualification.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LAWSON: As the hon. and gallant Member has pointed out, the effect of this Amendment would be that the time of disallowance, instead of being limited to six weeks, would be left in the hands of the Court of Referees or the Umpire.
Those who are familiar with the administration of the Act will know that six weeks has been the maximum period of disallowance for many years, and it has not been found advisable to leave the discretion to this extent in the hands of Courts of Referees or of the Umpire. Later on we may have something to say on the period of disallowance, but the Government cannot accept this Amendment, having regard to the long practice in this matter, and to the fact that the present practice has been usually satisfactory.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 12, to leave out the word "six," and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
It is true that a period of six weeks has been practically the universal practice ever since the Act came into operation. It is also the practice in the case of disallowance for misconduct. But there is a difference between misconduct and the question of not genuinely seeking work. In misconduct cases it has always been a recognised practice, but in many cases the courts of referees have reduced the disallowance from six weeks to a shorter period. In "not genuinely seeking work" cases, however, I am credibly informed that only very rarely, until recently the umpire decided that it was reasonable to do so, was there any less disallowance than six weeks. In cases of misconduct, the courts of referees took into consideration the fact that a man might leave his work hastily, having lost his temper, and might have some good reason for doing so, and therefore they reduced the period of disqualification, but, if it be once agreed that a person is not genuinely seeking work, it is very hard to say how far he was not genuinely seeking work, and if there is any doubt the benefit ought always to be allowed right away.
This is a terrible penalty to impose. A man with a wife and three children, under the old Act, would lose £9. That was a tremendous fine for an offence of this kind, though a period of six weeks might not at the first glance appear so serious. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, before the man could get benefit again at the end of three weeks, his case
would almost certainly have to go before the insurance officer again, and possibly before the court of referees. All that we are asking is, not that a man should be granted benefit at the end of three weeks, but that there shall only be a three weeks' disqualification and then the review period, with possibly an appearance again before the court of referees. We only ask that the review shall take place after a shorter period than six weeks. It is a very mild Amendment, and it will not cost as much as it would have cost had the new Clause not been introduced. It will cost, comparatively speaking, little or nothing. In every case where there is a six weeks' disqualification the insurance officer has to go through the case again, and it has to be reviewed. In view of the new conditions, I ask the Minister to consider a lesser period than six weeks.

Mr. LAWSON: It seems to me, in view of the larger interpretation of "not genuinely seeking work," that there is not so much danger from that point of view now. I understand my hon. Friend's chief complaint is that some referees or umpires make a practice—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I gave evidence before the Morris Committee, and it was almost universally accepted that in very few cases, if any, had there been a less penalty in the case of not genuinely seeking work than six weeks.

Mr. LAWSON: It is scarcely necessary to point out that the six weeks is a maximum, and that the courts of referees have power to make it less than that period, It would not be the desire of the Ministry that the courts should act under the impression that six weeks is the rigid law, and that there is therefore no power to reduce the penalty if they desire. I do not know if that meets my hon. Friend's point, but the Government certainly cannot accept a lower period than six weeks, particularly in view of the altered position.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Would my hon. Friend consider circularising Courts of Referees calling their attention to the new words in the Act and that they can give a lesser sentence than six weeks?

Mr. GRACE: Will the hon. Member explain what he means by the altered position? Are we to understand that in
view of the altered position the penalty should be less than six weeks or possibly more?

Mr. LAWSON: I am sure the House would regret if any Court of Referees were to act under the impression that they were compelled to give a six weeks disallowance and nothing less. My right hon. Friend will agree to make it clear to Courts of Referees what the legal position is.

Amendment negatived.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) Paragraph (ii) of sub section (2) of section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, shall have effect as though after the words the insured contributor,' were inserted the words or employment in another district.'
I will read to the House how paragraph (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, would read if it were amended in accordance with my Amendment:
After a lapse of such an interval from the date on which an insured contributor becomes unemployed as, in the circumstances of the case, is reasonable, employment shall not be deemed to be unsuitable by reason only that it is employment of a kind other than employment in the usual occupation of the insured contributor, or employment in another district, if it is employment at a rate of wage not lower, and on conditions not less favourable, than those generally observed by agreement between associations of employers and of employees, or failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised by good employers.
In the original Clause 4, which has been withdrawn, there was a Sub-section (3) which followed the wording of the Sub-section I have just read. It was withdrawn with a view to re-casting, but under the new Clause which has been brought up I have had great difficulty in ascertaining whether or not it will be possible to give written directions to a claimant to look for work in a district other than his own. We hear a great deal about the industrial situation in the North of England, and that there is a greater probability of people finding work in the South and West than in the North. Some districts have been described as being places where it is absolutely impossible to get work. I am sure
it is not the wish of the right hon. Lady to do anything to hinder the movement of labour, but I am rather uncertain as to how the new Clause affects the position. I have put down this Amendment, but if the right hon. Lady can satisfy me as to the position under the Clause I shall not press it.

Major GLYN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Miss BONDFIELD: I think, perhaps, again the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have not quite realised the implication of the words. As I read them, it would mean that in all probability no employer could offer a job in another district to anybody until a considerable period of unemployment had taken place, that would not be what the Mover of the Amendment would desire. Section 5, Sub-section (2), paragraph (ii) of the Act of 1927 provides, shortly that after the lapse of a reasonable interval of unemployment the claimant may, as a condition of continuing to receive benefit, be required to accept employment outside his usual occupation, if it is at a fair wage and on a fair condition. The question of the suitability of the employment in another district in the claimant's usual occupation is dealt with in the existing proviso to Section 7 of the Act of 1920. As far as the suitability of employment in another district outside the claimant's usual occupation is concerned, it is already covered by Section 5, Sub-section (2), paragraph (ii) of the Act of 1927 referred to in the Amendment. I think the situation is very well safeguarded and that the Amendment is entirely unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): The next Amendment selected by Mr. Speaker is the second Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor).

Mr. NAYLOR: Do I understand you to say that my first Amendment—in the proposed new Clause, line 18, at the end, to insert the words "(b) employment in a situation prohibited by his trade union; or"—has been passed over?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr. NAYLOR: May I ask why that Amendment is out of order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not say the Amendment was out of order. I said that it was not selected, but that the next one was selected.

Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 24, after the word "district"; to insert the words:
at such a distance as would compel him to live away from home, or
I can only say that I am sorry my first Amendment has not been selected. I regard it as of far greater importance than the Amendment that has been selected, and which I now move.
It is unfair that a man should not be permitted to refuse employment when that employment is going to take him away from his home town and necessitate his living away from home, even though the wages are regarded as fair in the locality to which he is expected to remove. I am not suggesting that every man should refuse to accept employment in these circumstances, but when a family man feels obliged, by the circumstances of his position, to refuse an engagement of this kind, it is unfair to deprive him of benefit. It is not right to expect him to go away from home and go to the expense of maintaining two establishments, when in all probability if he was allowed to remain he would secure employment in his home town.

Mr. CLUSE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LAWSON: The Amendment would strike a serious blow at the general mobility of labour. When anyone is requested to go away from home his domestic circumstances are taken into consideration, and also the facts as to the conditions of housing and other matters of that description. Speaking as one who knows something of the waterlogged areas, it is not held to be a ground for disallowance of benefit if the circumstances are not such as would make it easy in the domestic sense to accept that employment in another district. The Government cannot accept this limiting Amendment; not only would
it interfere with the mobility of labour, but I am sure that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment would regret to see it in operation.

Mr. McKINLAY: I should like to have some guarantee that by regulations one practice which is now in operation will be stopped. I can speak from a personal knowledge. Men have been instructed to go from the Clyde to Belfast, where there is a difference in the rate of wages of 1s. 6d. per week in favour of the Clyde. Thirty craftsmen are wanted. The information is sent to all Employment Exchanges, with the result that instead of getting 30 men from one locality only you get 30 men from various Employment Exchanges. If a Clydesman says that he is willing to go, and he goes, he finds that a job is not available for him. Possibly 100 have said that they will not go; it will not pay them to go. In that case they are automatically suspended from benefit because they have refused the offer of suitable employment. It is all very well to make an appeal on domestic grounds. I have had the penalty of waiting six weeks with six dependants. I should like an assurance from the right hon. Lady that she will at least take the trouble to circularise the Employment Exchanges on this point or alter the method of filling vacancies. There is no use in having 500 men interviewed when there is only employment available for 30. The position at the moment is absolutely absurd, and I ask the Minister of Labour to consider this aspect of the problem.

Miss BONDFIELD: I can assure the hon. Member that it is my policy, when the circumstances are taken into account in relation to a family, that wherever a man has refused to seek employment away from his home, and it is quite obvious that he is sincere, that under no circumstances should he be allowed to take a job away from his own home. I understand the point of the hon. Member and I can assure him as to the practice which is being adopted.

Mr. NAYLOR: On the assurance given by the right hon. Lady, in which I have every confidence, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of fourth statutory condition.)

Condition (iv) in sub-section (1) of section seven of the principal Act (which prescribes the statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit) shall cease to have effect.—[Miss Bondfield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am sure hon. Members are most unwilling that I should enter into further explanations on this matter. I beg to move.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 135.

Division No. 96.]
AYES.
[11.45 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromfield, William
Dukes, C.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bromley, J.
Duncan, Charles


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Brooke, W.
Ede, James Chuter


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brothers, M.
Edmunds, J. E.


Alpass, J. H.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Egan, W. H.


Angell, Norman
Buchanan, G.
Eimley, Viscount


Arnott, John
Burgess, F. G.
Foot, Isaac


Aske, Sir Robert
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Ayles, Walter
Calne, Derwent Hall.
Freeman, Peter


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Cameron, A. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Barnes, Alfred John
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Barr, James
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Batey, Joseph
Charieton, H. C.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Chater, Daniel
Gibbins, Joseph


Bellamy, Albert
Clarke, J. S.
Gill, T. H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cluse, W. S.
Glassey, A. E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gossling, A. G.


Benson, G.
Compton, Joseph
Gould, F.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Daggar, George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dallas, George
Granville, E.


Blindell, James
Dalton, Hugh
Gray, Mliner


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins)


Bowen, J. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McElwee, A.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, V. L.
Sanders, W. S.


Groves, Thomas E.
Mackinder, W.
Sandham, E.


Grundy, Thomas W.
McKinlay, A.
Sawyer, G. F.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
McShane, John James
Scott, James


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mansfield, W.
Scurr, John


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marcus, M.
Sexton, James


Harbord, A.
Markham, S. F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Hardie, George D.
Marley, J.
Sherwood, G. H.


Harris, Percy A.
Mathers, George
Shield, George William


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Matters, L. W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Melville, Sir James
Shillaker, J. F.


Haycock, A. W.
Messer, Fred
Shinwell, E.


Hayday, Arthur
Middleton, G.
Simmons, C. J.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Millar, J. D.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mills, J. E.
Sinkinson, George


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Milner, J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Herriotts, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morley, Ralph
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hirst, W, (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hoffman, P. C.
Mort, D. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hoillns, A.
Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hopkin, Daniel
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hore-Beilsha, Leslie.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sorensen, R.


Horrabin, J. F.
Muff, G.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Murnin, Hugh
Stephen, Campbell


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Isaacs, George
Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, G. R.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sullivan, J.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Sutton, J. E.


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Oldfield, J. R.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Toole, Joseph


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Tout, W. J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palin, John Henry
Turner, B.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Palmer, E. T.
Vaughan, D. J.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Walker, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Perry, S. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Kennedy, Thomas
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Watkins, F. C.


Kinley, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Lang, Gordon
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wellock, Wilfred


Lathan, G.
Potts, John S.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Price, M. P.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lawrence, Susan
Pybus, Percy John
West, F. R.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Staiybridge)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lawson, John James
Rathbone, Eleanor
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Raynes, W. R.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Leach, W.
Richards, R.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Lianeily)


Lees, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lindley, Fred W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Romeril, H. G.
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Longbottom, A. W.
Rosbotham, O. S. T.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Longden, F.
Rothschild, J. de



Lovat-Frasor, J. A.
Rowson, Guy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lunn, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Albery, Irving James
Butler, R. A.
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Carver, Major W. H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Beaumont M. W.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cranbourne, Viscount
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crichton-stuart, Lord C.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bracken, B.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Grace, John


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gunston, Captain D. W.




Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrison, w. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smithers, Waldson


Hartington, Marquess of
Muirhead, A. J.
Somervilie, D. G. (Wiliesden, East)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tinne, J. A.


Iveagh, Countess of
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Turton, Robert Hugh


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsbotham, H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Remer, John R.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lymington, Viscount
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, Sydney R.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Marjoribanks, E. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Womersley, W. J.


Mond, Hon. Henry
Savery, S. S.



Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Skelton, A. N.
Sir George Hennessy and Sir George


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Penny.

Clause added to the Bill.

Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now a djourned."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next, 16th December.

MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.

Mr. W. M. Adamson, Mr. Compton, Mr. Everard, Mr. Jenkins, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Philip Oliver, Major Salmon, Mr. Savery, Mr. Tinne, Mr. Tout, and Mr. R. S. Young nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Musical Copyright Bill:

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:

Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Mr. Kennedy.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question, put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.